Not Alarmist Enough

Normally, I might not deal with a four year old paper by James Hansen, the NASA doyenne of serial doomcasters. However, I note that this paper has been cited ten times this year alone, so I thought I might comment.

At some point when he was not giving a Press Conference, or getting arrested, or spending time complaining that he was being “muzzled”, Mr. Hansen wrote:

Abstract. I suggest that a `scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

I love the naked power grab. I mean, what an audacious plan!

First, you unilaterally declare that there is some huge looming disaster a long ways in the future. Using a variety of methods fair and foul, you obtain the full cooperation of other scientists, governments, educational institutions, and the media the world around. With all of you, the whole chorus, baying for skeptic’s blood in full voice, you spend a quarter century trying to convince the people of the oncoming Thermageddon.

Second, after said quarter century you notice that despite having the entire resources of the educational and media institutions of the planet and the blind agreement of other scientists and billions of dollars poured into trying … you have not been able to establish your case. Heck, you haven’t even been able to falsify the null hypothesis. In fact, after a long string of predictions of doom, none of which came to pass, and at the tail end of a 15-year hiatus in the warming, the US public doesn’t believe a word you say. Oops. Over two-thirds of them think climate scientists sometimes falsify their research. Oops.

In response, you say that the problem is that scientists have been too retice … too re … sorry, it’s hard to type and laugh at the same time … you say that scientists have been to reticent, that they haven’t been alarmist enough or aggressive enough in promoting their views.

That’s the problem? After 25 years of unbridled alarm from scientists and everyone else from Presidents to my kid’s teachers, the problem is that scientists are not alarmist enough, they’re too reticent to state their true opinion? Really? That’s the reason the public doesn’t believe you? Is that your final answer?

(Does he really, in his heart of hearts, believe that? Possible, I guess, but it presupposes a level of self-delusion that is scary …)

The real beauty of the plan, however, the sting in the tale, is the proposed solution—a “panel of scientific leaders” to inform the people of the error of our ways. I mean, the IPCC did so well, let’s make a sea level rise mini-IPCC. Staff it with people who will know what to say, who won’t have to be prompted.

Mr. Hansen claims he is a scientist first and an activist second. He and far too many other climate scientists are activists first, and scientists maybe fourth or fifth if at all. He proposes convening a Star Council of Jim and his hand-picked acolytes to lecture us sternly on a radical sea level rise slated to occur when they are dead? He wants us to listen to his pals make predictions they’ll never be held accountable for? And all this from the man who in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years? Fuggedaboutit. He probably felt safe with such a long-term prediction. In any case, we’re more than halfway there, and since 1988 the sea level in NYC has gone up by 2.5 inches (6 cm). Would you buy a sea level prediction from Jim?

There certainly are many problems in the field of climate science. Reticence on the part of climate scientists to clean up their own backyard is high on the list.

Reticence on the part of climate scientists to make alarmist claims, about sea level or any other imagined future disaster, is not on the list at all.

The main problem, however, is thinking that it’s a communications problem. It’s not. The problem is that Jim and his Climategate pals lied and cheated and pulled strings and even destroyed evidence in order to advance their views. All of that was revealed clearly in the UEA emails. They stand convicted by their own words.

As a result, lots of folks don’t believe a word that the climate scientists say. And reasonably so. I have seen no reason to believe they are now acting differently. There has been no “mea culpa” from even one individual involved. Noble Cause Corruption appears to have rotted the ethical parts of their brains entirely. They don’t even think they did wrong … and the rest of the honorable, decent, good climate scientists? Well, by and large they played the faithful dog Spot, they rolled over and played dead.

That’s the problem, not communications or reticent scientists. I had hoped that Climategate would lance the boil and the healing could begin … foolish boy, wrong again …

So no, I believe I’ll pass on the brilliant plan for the formation of the Official Panel Of The Sea-Level Wise Men. No need to even read the novel, most of us have seen the IPCC movie, and would prefer not to be forced to sit through a bad sequel.

It is such a pain that he is a Professional Alarmist. He cannot get his fees if he does not stay in the MSM headlights, and the only thing the MSM are attracted to are crises.

It is no longer relevant how real his projection of reality is. He calls attention to his subject, and that is not about mushy details. Attention is all about headlines, the bigger the font, the better.

If he were not employed by GISS/NASA/NOAA (I do this, because in the public mind he is head of all or some of them), he would be like Al Gore. Nobody except a flaming activist. He’d be ignored by the technical staff, something they can’t do right now.

What we need is Hansen’s removal from the government payroll, just as Jim Salinger in New Zealand drifted away into harmlessness once he was turfed. (His presence drifted away; his prior acts are still stinking up the place.)

Retire or get fired, please Mr. Hansen (he WAS a scientist. I don’t see he is anymore, a technically-trained paper-pusher is what I would say he is, like David Suzuki.).

Willis, the trouble with true believers is that they just won’t quit. Eventually, given enough incentive, they resort to blowing stuff up. Which, I believe, has already been discussed by some of those folks.

All very true. And the statement, “Well, by and large they played the faithful dog Spot, they rolled over and played dead.” certainly applies to all of those honorable, decent, and good members of the media. I long ago lost count of the number of times I heard from the media, “well these are scientist and they are much smarter than you or I, so we must believe them.” Such worthless analysis from those who should be questioning everything..

Anyone who believes climate change is false or irrelevant, just need witness the dramatic changes in weather that are happening RIGHT NOW: more frequent droughts, snow storms, floods, tornadoes, higher temperatures, and mass deaths of animals, just to name a few. Don’t let one, or several, egotistical scientists ruin a theory that will change the course of humanity. Have perspective and look at both sides of the argument. Or just look at your window and see that it’s snowing in August.

“We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected.”

King Canute has a similar Noble Cause Corruption ….. we didn’t have control of tides then, nor sea level now. I don’t quite get how the prognostications of the past are not brought up in the media. If Jim were a fully fledged politician…they would.

Sea level has been rising at about six inches per century since the end of the Little Ice Age. Right now, the tide gauges along the US west coast are showing a slight decrease in sea level.
Hansen has been lying at least since 1988. He is a climate astrologer not a scientist. His computer models have been hard wired to give the results he wants. The radiative forcing technique that he uses is, to say the least, invalid .
My detailed comments on this, addressed to the US Dept. of Fish and Game for trying to steal US beaches beacuse of ‘global warming’ are at:http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070-0127
(click on the red .pdf button lower right to access the file. It should be about 100 pages – a little long for WUWT).

Anyone who believes climate change is false or irrelevant, just need witness the dramatic changes in weather that are happening RIGHT NOW: more frequent droughts, snow storms, floods, tornadoes, higher temperatures, and mass deaths of animals, just to name a few. Don’t let one, or several, egotistical scientists ruin a theory that will change the course of humanity. Have perspective and look at both sides of the argument. Or just look at your window and see that it’s snowing in August.

You left out “more frequent alien abductions” from your otherwise hilarious list … my own particular favorite was the “mass deaths of animals”, which immediately brought up images of endangered bats and windmills …

w.

PS—You suggest that I “just look at [my] window and see that it’s snowing in August.”

I just looked at my window. My window wasn’t snowing. Perhaps it’s a typo, I thought, so I looked out my window instead. But it still wasn’t snowing, it’s a lovely Sunday, perfect temperature, and I’m going to the beach.

But then I realized “Hey, it’s not August either”, so that explained it all.

Hansen has been wrong so many times, its a wonder how he still holds a job that pays higher then most. If I had been wrong in my field,you can gurantee I’d be unemployed, instead of getting a constant stream of government funding.

And to the poster ” SmartGuy” ( who is anything but), thanks for the pitiful attempt to hijack the conversation with tired cliches and rehearsed arguments. Until you can provide evidence for your ridiculous claims, you might want to change your nickname.

Smart Guy says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Anyone who believes climate change is false or irrelevant, just need witness the dramatic changes in weather that are happening RIGHT NOW: more frequent droughts, snow storms, floods, tornadoes, higher temperatures, and mass deaths of animals, just to name a few. Don’t let one, or several, egotistical scientists ruin a theory that will change the course of humanity. Have perspective and look at both sides of the argument. Or just look at your window and see that it’s snowing in August.
—————————————
I know exactly what you mean. It’s only late October and already a frost. Plus I was in northern Canada and it snowed. Plus I heard a whole bunch of lions and tigers died the other day when their owner let them loose. Every time I turn on the tv it is getting worse.
Now I know how you got your name smart guy.

GISS, under James Hansen, routinely tampers with the past temperature record, and their tampering always results in a more alarming chart, never the reverse.

I should also note that despite Hansen’s beliefs, AGW is not a “theory”, it is an hypothesis with no verifiable, testable evidence supporting it. There probably is some minor warming of a degree or so due to the increase in CO2, but actual empirical evidence is lacking. That said, on balance the rise in CO2 has been both harmless and beneficial.

The very *mild* global warming we have experienced is extremely minor. The planet has warmed from 288K to 288.8K over a century and a half. Natural temperature fluctuations have routinely been many times greater than that, and they have occured over much shorter time spans – and during times when CO2 was much lower than now.

Only GISS and similar computer models show AGW [as distinguished from natural global warming]. Those models are programmed by people like Hansen, who stand to financially benefit by alarming the public. There is no empirical [real world] evidence of any global harm due to the rise in CO2. But there is ample evidence that more CO2 is very beneficial to the biosphere, and has caused substantially increased agricultural production.

James Hansen’s “carbon” scare is based on a repeatedly falsified conjecture. Skeptics are simply asking for testable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 causes global harm. So far, neither Hansen nor anyone else has been able to produce any such evidence. What does that tell you?

Mark S says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm
You type the letter “I” a lot. Sign of a narcissist. Just saying.
===============
Interesting, of my many (mostly stupid) comments I have forced Anthony to publish, I have always wondered about the letter “I”.
Now “I” know, thanks.

“Don’t let one, or several, egotistical scientists ruin a theory that will change the course of humanity”

Climate change is a fact of life, not a theory, and has been so for billions of years! .Have perspective and realise you’ve been taken in by UNIPCC Doublespeak. The computer model generated theory (?) of AGW along with its misbegotten monster son runaway Catastrophic AGW, is NOT climate change.

Look out your window and see the normal seasonal cyclical changes in climate due to natural variability which have been happening since Time began and will continue to do so till the end of Time irrespective of any input by Man, particularly the few extra parts per million of essential CO2 that can be attributed to human activities.

They, the global warming crowd, think US citizens just fell off the turnip wagon and are stupid ignoramuses who will believe stupid things or almost anything. They think all they need to do is find out how to make us believe without proof.

Can anyone name a “cause” put out there by the “progressives” which has any more factual support than the “Climate Change Cause?” Even our President and his Ivy-League experts are all telling us the exact same thing Hansen-The-Great is telling us: We just need a better explanation of how brilliant all these “changes” are (IOW, we are too stupid to understand how brilliant all the progrressive “causes” are).

And the public is rating these illustrious folks at about the same level as they are rating climate scientists. I think I see at least one social trend.

Anyone who believes climate change is false or irrelevant, just need witness the dramatic changes in weather that are happening RIGHT NOW: more frequent droughts, snow storms, floods, tornadoes, higher temperatures, and mass deaths of animals, just to name a few. Don’t let one, or several, egotistical scientists ruin a theory that will change the course of humanity. Have perspective and look at both sides of the argument. Or just look at your window and see that it’s snowing in August.

*** This last statement “…Or just look at your window and see that it’s snowing in August…” actually took me back to the summer of ’90, when I was stationed in Galena, AK. There, I actually saw my first snowfall on the last day of summer (around Sept 22, IIRC).

quote from article>>
“I love the naked power grab. I mean, what an audacious plan!

First, you unilaterally declare that there is some huge looming disaster a long ways in the future. Using a variety of methods fair and foul, you obtain the full cooperation of other scientists, governments, educational institutions, and the media the world around. With all of you, the whole chorus, baying for skeptic’s blood in full voice, you spend a quarter century trying to convince the people of the oncoming Thermageddon.”
>>

What specific foul methods has Hansen used? How did he gain cooperation with these groups, trick them? And while I agree with some of Hansen’s work, I don’t think he has convinced me to thirst for “skeptic blood”. Is he and others gearing up to physically hurt/kill skeptics?

As far as falsifying the null hypothesis, that can never be done in quite a few scientific fields, such as biology, medicine, etc (as I understand it anyway). What one can do is collect quite a bit of evidence.

Can you substantiate the quoted paragraph, or is it all satire? It sounds like satire. After reading the whole article, methinks it is satire.

Anyone who believes climate change is false or irrelevant, just need witness the dramatic changes in weather that are happening RIGHT NOW: more frequent droughts, snow storms, floods, tornadoes, higher temperatures, and mass deaths of animals, just to name a few. Don’t let one, or several, egotistical scientists ruin a theory that will change the course of humanity. Have perspective and look at both sides of the argument. Or just look at your window and see that it’s snowing in August.
*******
Unless you live in Australia snow in August would signal global cooling which CO2 cannot do no matter what the uneducated believe .

You, Mark, are “just saying”? Hey, I know that A implies B does not mean that B implies A, but in your case I’m afraid that either Alinsky has taken over your mind or else you are one of the narcissists you seek to tar solely by means of your feckless name-call. Or both. And I’m not just saying. Or else maybe you should get into the real game instead and explain why the people who you think are not narcissists, including you, are not bothered by the fact that their CO2 = CAGW “science” has not yielded even one relevant correct empirical prediction yet?

But me, I’m going to watch me some baseball. At least that involves a real game with rules, you know, the kind which the players follow to produce their specialized product?

Re Hanson’s prediction, keep in mind that regardless of sealevel rise, The Westside Highway was planned to be put under water by a Big-dig style project. The project was since canceled due to the threat it posed to striped bass(thanks, environmentalists!) in 1985. Hanson must have not gotten the memo.

Mark S says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“You type the letter “I” a lot. Sign of a narcissist. Just saying.”

Actually, when a person undertakes the task of presenting his views on a topic, it is quite common to use the word ‘I’ quite often. Use of the word ‘I’ is symptomatic when a person cannot talk about anything without using the word.

I’m (there’s that letter again) sure that it snowed somewhere in August. I think that Anthony might have even blog on it. But unlike alarmists, us skeptics think that snow in the summer is not a sign of warming. Only an idiot (oh oh, two letter “I” in that word) would think that snow in the summer means out of control warming is occurring.

“Willis Eschenbach-whether or not you agree with James Hansen it is common courtesy to acknowledge his academic achievements by referring to him As Dr Hansen rather than Mr Hansen”

While “Dr” Hansen used to claim a doctorate in his résumé, the institution he obtained it from, when asked, could find no record of his ever being a student there. Subsequently, the claim to a doctorate was disappeared from his résumé. Thus Willis is perfectly entitled to refer to him as Mr Hansen, just as NASA is within its rights to use it “as an honorific” to use their terminology.

NOTE: This accusation is false, and while I don’t agree with Dr. Hansen on many things his PhD is not in question. Redacted. – Anthony

“Willis Eschenbach-whether or not you agree with James Hansen it is common courtesy to acknowledge his academic achievements by referring to him As Dr Hansen rather than Mr Hansen”

YOU, sir, help make your “ilk” look ever more stupid. Sorry, but it does not matter ONE WHIT what title you have. If you don’t see that, then you are really really out of touch with reality. It just shows that you DON’T have the required moxy. Please google/bing/whatever “appeal to authority.”

AND, if you choose to respond to my comment, you have to address me as Dr. JAE.

You rang? Oh wait, there’s another pompous, uneducated fool in the house? :-)

My first editor had a bee in his bonnet about the use of the Perpendicular Pronoun which is what led to the creation of The World’s Most Famousest Pompous Git (according to Google). When I commenced a philosophy of science course in my first attempt at retirement, I lost marks for the paucity of perpendicular pronouns in my prose. Go figure.

As my grandaddy used to say: “You can’t fool all the people all the time, but you can jerk the rest off”.

“While “Dr” Hansen used to claim a doctorate in his résumé, the institution he obtained it from, when asked, could find no record of his ever being a student there. Subsequently, the claim to a doctorate was disappeared from his résumé. Thus Willis is perfectly entitled to refer to him as Mr Hansen, just as NASA is within its rights to use it “as an honorific” to use their terminology.”

Wait,what? Hanson doesn’t have a real doctorate? Am I right to infer that he originally claimed to have one – but didn’t?

“I’m (there’s that letter again) sure that it snowed somewhere in August.”

It snowed in August here in southern Tasmania. And in September. And in October. Dunno if it snowed in November yet, not being a climatologist. My potatoes still haven’t recovered from being bitten by the hard frost of a fortnight ago. Usually we have our last frost in late August.

otter17 says:
October 23, 2011 at 5:19 pm
…What specific foul methods has Hansen used? How did he gain cooperation with these groups, trick them? …

To increase the reported level of Global Warming, Hansen’s crew at NASA GISS diddled with the US Temperature data record. (Hansen headed GISS for decades, and still heads it, at my expense and that of other US taxpayers.)

Temperatures prior to the 1970’s have been systematically reduced, and post 1970’s data systematically increased.

If there is that much “wiggle room” in the analysis of US thermometer data, which should be among the most reliable records in the world, what does that say about Global records? Yes, I know the US is only about 2% of the surface of the Earth. But, if our thermometer record is that unreliable, what trust can anyone have in the reliability of the other 98% ?

And, in the graphic below please read the internal GISS email that documents their SEVEN repeated re-analysis efforts, between 1999 and 2007, to reduce the 0.5ºC difference between 1934 and 1998 to a virtual tie.

“While “Dr” Hansen used to claim a doctorate in his résumé, the institution he obtained it from, when asked, could find no record of his ever being a student there. Subsequently, the claim to a doctorate was disappeared from his résumé. Thus Willis is perfectly entitled to refer to him as Mr Hansen, just as NASA is within its rights to use it “as an honorific” to use their terminology.”

That is just a deranged fantasy. Watts, you should be careful about hosting libellous comments like this.

[Reply: We don’t censor peoples’ opinions. If you have a credible source showing that James Hansen was awarded a doctorate, post it. This is how we get to the truth, no matter where it leads. ~dbs, mod.]

“If I were elected president, Hansen and his smirking ilk Schmidt, among others, would be among the first that I would fire, if I could.”

Personal attacks such as the article aside, Hansen is one of the most highly cited climate scientists on the planet. You’d be firing the the objectively best scientists to cater to your subjective opinions about hydrocarbons.

And I fully support you. The US has leveraged its economic hegemony to propagate intellectual property laws on the rest of the world that are designed to stifle development. The quickest route to limiting their power is, as you suggest, purge the government and preferably schooling system of science.

I must admit I am interested how the public will judge James Hansen and his extreme AGW cohorts when they discover that paradigm was akin to Y2K and other end of the world prophesies which the leaches push for their own profit. Hopefully trillions of tax payer dollars will not be spent on boondoggle carbon trading and carbon credit schemes and food to biofuel conversion plants, before it becomes clear that there is no climate warming problem to solve.

Hansen’s primary concern is sea level rise. As the sea level is now unexpectedly falling perhaps he will raise the alarm for falling sea level. There are in the past cycle unexplained sea level changes that occur roughly concurrent with the abrupt climate change events. It is difficult due to the relentless extreme AGW propaganda to even imagine global cooling.

‘Ian says:
October 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Willis Eschenbach-whether or not you agree with James Hansen it is common courtesy to acknowledge his academic achievements by referring to him As Dr Hansen rather than Mr Hansen”

Geez, Willis was nice enough to call him MISTER?

Step above how I’d refer to a that demogogic, mad mob motivating anarchist.

thepompousgit at 6.08pm stated “While “Dr” Hansen used to claim a doctorate in his résumé, the institution he obtained it from, when asked, could find no record of his ever being a student there. Subsequently, the claim to a doctorate was disappeared from his résumé”

I think you may be mistaken which is perfectly OK in itself but unfortunately seems to have mislead David at 6.37 pm who says:

“Wait,what? Hanson doesn’t have a real doctorate? Am I right to infer that he originally claimed to have one – but didn’t?”
I very much doubt that Dr Hansen would be foolish enough to fraudulently claim to have a PhD given his very high profile in Climate Science

While “Dr” Hansen used to claim a doctorate in his résumé, the institution he obtained it from, when asked, could find no record of his ever being a student there. Subsequently, the claim to a doctorate was disappeared from his résumé.

@Everyone I was speaking from personal experience. Earlier in August I was in Alaska and right when I walked outside a bird fell on my head, then I noticed it was snowing! The first thing that came to my mind was Global Warming. I rushed inside, found this blog, and wrote that post. After writing it, I went back outside and realized that I could go snowboarding! Man do I love snow in August!

Re the “Smart Guy” – I live in Tasmania and it snows in August every year here. It also snows in October, November, December, January to March etc ( i.e. in spring summer / early fall ) from time to time – it is normal. Rule of thumb here, it snows once a month somewhere in the state. I imagine weather variability is pretty normal everywhere.

IMHO, WUWT should not publish supposedly factual information without some level of backup. I did a Google on this matter and could not find any backup statement that Hansen had falsely claimed to have a PhD. Wikipedia and other sources say he has a 1967 PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa. Absent any published evidence to the contrary, the Moderators should take down the unsupported claim, or at least append a note to it stating that it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion from a source of unknown credibility.

Wow, what a well sourced article. This may be the final nail in the AGW coffin. The media, governments, scientists, Presidents and educators (including your kids teachers) are all in on it and Dr. Hansen’s UEA emails which were cited prove it. Wait, no emails from Dr. Hansen were cited. No matter. The accusations are alarming enough. This whole article is very alarming. One could say the alarmism expressed in this article is alarming. The alarmism raised by this alarming article is very alarming. Thank you Willis for raising the alarm and being an alarmist. Without alarmists, we would not know uncited emails from Dr. Hansen can be the final nail in the AGW coffin. Your alarm at the nefarius plot is a true representation of the level of alarmism welcome at this blog.

I took a copy of that article, and a copy of this one and pasted them into a word processor. Tamino’s article had 1,029 words and used “I” with or without a trailing apostrophe a total of 14 times, or 1.36% of the text. Willis’ article here had 938 words and used “I” with or without a trailing apostrophe a total of 13 times, or 1.39% of the text. There isn’t much difference.

One wonders if it might be appropriate to head over to Tamino’s site and begin quoting Mark S’ observations here under that article.

Personal attacks such as the article aside, Hansen is one of the most highly cited climate scientists on the planet. You’d be firing the the objectively best scientists to cater to your subjective opinions about hydrocarbons.

It wasn’t a personal attack. It was a comment on the scientific and political value of Hansen.

Your theory about “most cited” fails to hold water for several reasons:

1) Karl Marx would be one of the most highly cited economists on the planet. I wouldn’t want anyone who agreed with him near any economy I was hoping would be successful.

2) Hansen is head of a very important lab. His name goes on all sorts of things as a result. His personal input into that material will vary considerably.

3) Since when was science “objectively” described by the number of publications?

4) The president has to make political decisions. Has to. Cannot fail to do so. Some of those decisions will be to fire people with whom he strongly disagrees. Unless you really believe that a person like Hansen is a pure scientist, free from idealogical issues, he is as valid a target as the person who is making political statements.

As a side note, New Zealand sacked our equivalent scientist (Dr Jim Salinger) for his failure to stick to his paid science job and wandering ever more in policy and politics.

Although thepompousgit has withdrawn his statement re Dr Hansen’s Ph.D it is unfortunate that statements such as these make it to print on websites such as WUWT. The moderator says in response to Stevo who psoted at 7.05pm
“[Reply: We don’t censor peoples’ opinions. If you have a credible source showing that James Hansen was awarded a doctorate, post it. This is how we get to the truth, no matter where it leads. ~dbs, mod.]

This means checking that statements are factual before is essential because they may well be seized on and used to denigrate WUWT and other sceptical sites by those, such as Dr Gavin Schmidt and Tamino, who subscribe to the views on climate change held by Dr Hansen

IMHO, WUWT should not publish supposedly factual information without some level of backup. I did a Google on this matter and could not find any backup statement that Hansen had falsely claimed to have a PhD. Wikipedia and other sources say he has a 1967 PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa. Absent any published evidence to the contrary, the Moderators should take down the unsupported claim, or at least append a note to it stating that it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion from a source of unknown credibility.”

Ira, I agree, but blame me, not the moderators. I should have checked my memory against the belief I frustratingly still have that I read this before I posted. I can’t even blame alcohol for this. And I am truly contrite. I have been a very bad Git.

REPLY: Indeed you have been, I have redacted your false comment. – Anthony

>> Ian says:
October 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm
In June 2011 Dr Hansen provided an updated resumee stating he obtained a Ph.D in 1967 from the University of Iowa <<

He had to UPDATE his resume to state that? What did it state before the update? I can't imagine anyone posting a resume that needed to be UPDATED later to show his PhD. Was it just a matter of the year being wrong?

And I thought his PhD was in Astronomy. Now it's Physics? Is that because his specialty was in astronomy in a physics department that only gave PhDs in Physics? Or did he actually get an Astronomy degree but calls it Physics because it sounds more impressive?

Willis Eschenbach-whether or not you agree with James Hansen it is common courtesy to acknowledge his academic achievements by referring to him As Dr Hansen rather than Mr Hansen

Ian, that is exactly why I call him Mr. Hansen. A man in my world does not earn respect by his title, but by his actions. As for his “academic achievements”, I know of none worthy of respect. Certainly, as Michael Mann has proven, the possession of a PhD is no proof that the possessor is worthy of respect.

In fact, Mr. Hansen lost my respect forever when he secretly turned off the air conditioning before testifying to Congress about global warming. Perhaps you respect a man who does that kind of underhanded thing. Me, not at all. I do not respect Mr. Hansen, nor his myriad actions, in the slightest, and I find it unethical to pretend that I do.

w.

PS—Yes, I generally call someone with a PhD “Doctor” if I have no knowledge of them. However, in Mr. Hansen’s case, I do have knowledge of him.

First, you unilaterally declare that there is some huge looming disaster a long ways in the future. Using a variety of methods fair and foul, you obtain the full cooperation of other scientists, governments, educational institutions, and the media the world around. With all of you, the whole chorus, baying for skeptic’s blood in full voice, you spend a quarter century trying to convince the people of the oncoming Thermageddon.”

>>

What specific foul methods has Hansen used? How did he gain cooperation with these groups, trick them? And while I agree with some of Hansen’s work, I don’t think he has convinced me to thirst for “skeptic blood”. Is he and others gearing up to physically hurt/kill skeptics?

Start with secretly turning off the air conditioning in the Senate Committee room before his Congressional testimony. Move on to his testifying in court in favor of violence against people who disagree with him. Mix in bogus claims that he is being “muzzled” when he is the most quoted NASA guy on the planet. Drag out his weepy appeal to emotions by bringing in his poor, benighted grandchildren and how I’m being so mean to them. Top the soufflé with his unending series of failed predictions, which he never acknowledges, just sweeps under the rug.

Finally, you ask, “is [are?] he and others gearing up to physically hurt/kill skeptics”? You really are new to the field of climate science, aren’t you. Try this quote of Jimmy’s:

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Jimmy doesn’t want to hurt anyone, otter … he just wants them all thrown in jail. And since when he made that statement I was the CFO for a fossil energy company, he was not talking at random from my perspective. He was saying I should be thrown in jail, the prick, for my scientific beliefs …

Dear Dr JAE In response to your post at 6.16pmI have addressed you as requested.

I actually found your comment which is below, quite offensive
“YOU, sir, help make your “ilk” look ever more stupid. Sorry, but it does not matter ONE WHIT what title you have. If you don’t see that, then you are really really out of touch with reality. It just shows that you DON’T have the required moxy. Please google/bing/whatever “appeal to authority.”

What is “my ilk”? Why does suggesting posters use common courtesy stupid? No it doesn’t matter one whit what title you have but if you are going to use a title why not use the correct one? Willis Eschenbach used a title when he referred to James Hansen as Mr Hansen. Had he referred to him as James Hansen I wouldn’t have said anything. As I point out in another post here it is prudent not to provide any ammunition to those such as Gavin Schmidt and Tamino who are ever ready to discredit sites such as these.

“Willis Eschenbach-whether or not you agree with James Hansen it is common courtesy to acknowledge his academic achievements by referring to him As Dr Hansen rather than Mr Hansen”

YOU, sir, help make your “ilk” look ever more stupid. Sorry, but it does not matter ONE WHIT what title you have. If you don’t see that, then you are really really out of touch with reality. It just shows that you DON’T have the required moxy. Please google/bing/whatever “appeal to authority.”

AND, if you choose to respond to my comment, you have to address me as Dr. JAE.

Willis Eschenbach thank you for your reply, I think it unfortunate that you then applaud Dr Jae for his offensive remarks. I fail to see why you should do so as I have done nothing I consider could be construed as offensive. I appear to be regarded by several posters as an arch warmist which i most certainly am not and would ask that in future you have a look at the posts from “Ian of Fremantle” and judge for yourselves I’ve been [posting on WUWT for quite a long time and i do not, categorically do not, subscribe to the warmist views. I think it advisable to maintain the high moral ground as it tends to unsettle one’s opponents. Look at the recent comments from Anthony Watts on Dr Gavin Schmidt’s to see exactly what I mean.

Dr Ian Lee (Ph.D University of Western Australia) says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Dear Dr JAE In response to your post at 6.16pmI have addressed you as requested.

I actually your comment which is below, quite offensive
“YOU, sir, help make your “ilk” look ever more stupid. Sorry, but it does not matter ONE WHIT what title you have. If you don’t see that, then you are really really out of touch with reality. It just shows that you DON’T have the required moxy. Please google/bing/whatever “appeal to authority.”

What is “my ilk”? Why does suggesting posters use common courtesy stupid? No it doesn’t matter one whit what title you have but if you are going to use a title why not use the correct one? Willis Eschenbach used a title when he referred to James Hansen as Mr Hansen. Had he referred to him as James Hansen I wouldn’t have said anything. As I point out in another post here it is prudent not to provide any ammunition to those such as Gavin Schmidt and Tamino who are ever ready to discredit sites such as these.

Dr. Ian, you’re just digging yourself in deeper, you’ve forgotten the first rule of holes.

Mr. Gavin Schmidt and Mr. Grant Foster (who cravenly hides behind the alias “Tamino”) have both blocked me from posting on their sites, the wimps. If you think that I care about their opinion in the slightest, or that I think that they deserve respect, you are badly mistaken.

They have proven themselves not worthy of any man’s respect. They are cowards who are unwilling to answer the questions of honest scientists. If you respect them, you’ve lost my respect right there, that would prove you can’t tell a scientist from a charlatan.

Finally, Gavin and Grant will do whatever they can, foul or fair, no matter what I call Jimmy Hansen, to discredit this site. They’ve been at it for years … meanwhile, this site gets more and more readers, and their site gets less and less … funny, that. Honest vs. dishonesty, answer questions and admit mistakes vs. no answers and never an admission of error, the good guys are actually winning. Go figure.

w.

PS—You ask “if you are going to use a title why not use the correct one?”

In Jimbo’s case, that would be because EFFA, or “Egomaniacal Fact-Fudging Asterisk”, Hansen’s official title, doesn’t have the right ring to it for a family blog. However, if you want me to call him EFFA Hansen, I’m willing to oblige …

PPS—I’ve not considered you an “arch warmist”, I am unfamiliar with your name. However, I read thousands and thousands of comments every month, so I certainly may have read some of yours. However, your or my position on the climate question is not relevant to the issue of what I should call Mr. Hansen. That is a question of respect and honor.

Willis Eschenbach thank you for your reply, I think it unfortunate that you then applaud Dr Jae for his offensive remarks. I fail to see why you should do so as I have done nothing I consider could be construed as offensive. I appear to be regarded by several posters as an arch warmist which i most certainly am not and would ask that in future you have a look at the posts from “Ian of Fremantle” and judge for yourselves I’ve been [posting on WUWT for quite a long time and i do not, categorically do not, subscribe to the warmist views. I think it advisable to maintain the high moral ground as it tends to unsettle one’s opponents. Look at the recent comments from Anthony Watts on Dr Gavin Schmidt’s to see exactly what I mean.

Dr. Ian, you want me to accord respect to a man who is not worthy of it in the slightest, a man who has done his best to stop any kind of economic development in developing countries, and who would, if given his way, condemn the poor of the planet to a lifetime of energy-poor misery and poverty.

Perhaps you expected to be lauded for your high motives in defending such a man. Instead, you find yourself attacked for your shortsighted stupidity and your insistence that, merely because he has a PhD, a man who wants to impoverish the poor should be respected.

Sorry, Dr. Ian, but I think your possession of a PhD has blinded you to a simple fact. EVERY CLIMATEGATE UN-INDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR HAS A PhD. Those are the crooks who’ve been leading the charge, PhDs, one and all.

Indeed, the opposition against me personally, and against this site, and against the poor of the planet, has been led, organized, and financed almost entirely by and through guys with PhDs … and then you wander in like some climate Mr. Magoo without your glasses and start asking us to respect them?

Respect them? Those guys are trying to destroy us, because we object to them destroying the world’s economy, and you want us to respect them? What have you been smoking? I have no respect for them at all, and unlike some people, I’m unwilling to pretend that I do.

My friend, you’re about a half inch from becoming plain old Mr. Fremantle, and I’d rather you stayed Dr. Ian of Fremantle, among other things it sounds like a patent of nobility …

Let it go, Ian. Asking Americans of any political stripe to use titles when they don’t respect the title-holder is a losing game. And we like it that way!

Well, I saw a half an hour ago, after the Hansen doctorate kerfuffle, that I needed to post something like, “Now is the time at WUWT when we dance!” but I couldn’t think of any videos to link to besides Dana Carvey’s Sprockets or the original Hide the Decline video.or Aussie soccer fans singing “Land Down Under” (o happy day when they toss Gillard, Rudd, etc.). Please insert your own fave videos here.

Hansen’s forecasting track record has been woeful. If he were working in private enterprise, he would have been sacked by now. Willis, please keep up the excellent work in exposing this incompetent idiot.

From the University of Iowa Library catalog:
The atmosphere of Venus: a dust insulation model.
James E. Hansen (James Edward), 1941-
Thesis (Ph.D.)–University of Iowa, 1967. 1967
Available at Libraries Annex (T1967 .H249 )

No, and especially not since the failed seasonal Climate forecasts overtook the Missing Heat travesty.
Climate Science was taken for a ride on a Perpetual Alarm Machine, which went the way of Perpetual Motion Machines. Now, Jim wants others to re-spin the stalled contraption. He’s winded.

Nothing insulting about being called Mr. Men with doctorate degrees are still Mr as well as Dr and it isn’t rude to call them Mr. If Dr/Mr Hansen’s reputation depends on such a little thing, his followers must be mighty insecure.

Speaking of the merits of what the number of times Hansen has been “cited” has to do with his scientific credibility, how about what seems to be his most favorite way to communicate his dire message, the number of pictures of Hansen being cited? Such as the one above.

“If I were elected president, Hansen and his smirking ilk Schmidt, among others, would be among the first that I would fire, if I could.”

Personal attacks such as the article aside, Hansen is one of the most highly cited climate scientists on the planet. You’d be firing the the objectively best scientists to cater to your subjective opinions about hydrocarbons.

They wouldn’t be fired for their opinions, but for their violations of federal regulations. Hansen isn’t supposed to be out campaigning for a political POV (tax carbon, demonstrate against coal generating plants, etc.) while employed by the gov’t.–and he may have passed retirement age (?). His paid speecifying around the country during the work-week needs looking into. Schmidt’s hosting of RC seems to be a full-time job–and such opinionating on the public’s dime isn’t allowable, supposedly. Those are the procedural violations (and there may be others) that have repeatedly been cited here as reasons for their dismissal–not their mere opinions.

Usually I sit and read every comment before I consider whether its worth saying anything at all but I am so sick of seeing “look at how much the climate has changed, we need to do something.” Maybe out your window there’s been change but where I live climate its always the same, years of good rain fall, years of drought, years of hot weather, years of cold weather, and on and on it goes, relentless weather. You’ll never see stories about how wonderful the weather has been, there’s no money in saying all’s well with the world, so alarmist propaganda is always the focus.

Also, I am new to WUWT but lately the comments seem to be getting nastier. It may be that this site has always been like this but I think it’s time to take a chill pill and have a lie down, regroup and come out ready for the next fight. “UHI is localized and is therefore negligible my ass.”

Willis referred to his time as a psychotherapist and the technical term of art for what Mark S had said – “psychobabble”.

I (there it is again – how does one avoid it? Oooooh I just did! Rats! back where I started…..Ooops..I better get out of these parentheses before I am psychoanalysed). So, to continue, I am ecstatic to be able to advise that here in Australia (what a bloody great little country it is too) there is a much older and, dare I say it, more accurate term which I can now offer to you. It is “B_ _ _ S_ _ _”.

In this country at least, it is so well known that it is only necessary to write/pronounce the first letters of the words, as in: ” Doesn’t that fellow….err what’s his name? Hansen?…. talk a lot of BS?”. It is, of course, most convenient to use this diminutive form when one is engaged in social intercourse in reputable or delicate company.

And if you will allow me for a moment to become just a little didactic, careful analysis of those occasions which seem most naturally to call for the use of the term, demonstrates quite conclusively that, when it is used, it carries with it a visceral (but gentle) suggestion of disapproval in relation to the subject matter which is under description. So, like the best poetry, it is very succinct in conveying meaning. That is to say, it is not just the fact of the descibed matter being BS, which is conveyed to the reader/listener, but, albeit almost subliminally, it also conveys a degree of more or less amiable distaste towards that subject.

Of course I could go on, but one (Ha! avoided that one) must not place oneself in such a position as to be hoist with one’s own petard, so to speak, and fall headlong into the (far too common) trap of writing/speaking BS!

Regards,
Kohl P (the P DOES NOT stand for PhD!)

PS Re ‘doctor’: Of course these days there are many among us who are called “doctor” but who, alas, do not possess a PhD degree, not even a little one, from any kind of university, never mind one that has a ‘reputation’. One speaks (this is rather fun isn’t it?) of medical doctors, dentists and now even veterinary surgeons – at least that is what I am led to believe by those who frequent such establishments. All of this rather misses out on the proper meaning of the appellation which is, inevitably, taken from the Latin. A doctor is a ‘teacher’. In the good old days, well before my time, one became a ‘doctor’ by finding out something which no-one else knew so as to be in a position to tell everyone else about it – one became a teacher.

King Canute has a similar Noble Cause Corruption ….. we didn’t have control of tides then, nor sea level now. I don’t quite get how the prognostications of the past are not brought up in the media. If Jim were a fully fledged politician…they would.

FAIL x 2
1) Canute did his little demo to drive some sense into court syncophants who babbled he could order the tides around. One version of the story has him lashing the biggest loudmouth to the throne while the rising water drowned him.

2) It had nothing to do with the issue of “Noble Cause” corruption, just hubris and deluded underestimation of the power of Nature.

Perhaps it is time to begin using a new term to describe Dr Hansen and his ilk, I suggest: Climate Fundamentalist.

When used in a religious context, this means someone holding extreme views and who is unable or unwilling to tolerate alternative views. That someone is often dangerous and destructive and who has twisted the tenets of a basic faith into something ugly. Finally, that someone is prone to high profile acts specifically designed to scare or terrorise the unbelievers.

Yup, a climate fundamentalist is a typical ‘climate scientist’ all right.

I have all the material and research done for the remaining two articles taking us from the Romans through the medieval warm period to the modern day. Unfortunately the articles take an enormous amount of time to put together and the generous supply of money from Big Oil seems to have dried up recently…

It is quite obvious that sea levels have been higher than today in the recent historical past. They go up and go down with some regularity, and the fractional rate of increase over the last century is entirely within n0rmal parmeters and in many places is too small to measure.

To meet the stated claims of a metre rise by the end of the century they would have to accelerate from nothing to some 11mm a year. There is no sign whatsover of this happening.
Incidentally the article has been stuck on 499 comments for months, so if anyone wants to push it over 500…
tonyb

For no charge here is this layman’s view of sea level rise. To raise sea level just one metre will require the melting of ~400,000 cubic kilometres of land borne ice. I won’t bore you with how much energy will be required but I will mention that the energy can only be delivered through the atmosphere. Warm seas melt floating ice very quickly but warm air takes quite a while to melt the ice on the land. Only Antarctica and Greenland have enough ice for this. Also the next metre of sea level rise will require oven more ice to melt.
As I type I can look out of my window at the fishing boats in the harbour. Hmm… tides low just now but at next high tide I will check for any rise in sea level. I don’t expect to see any. This harbour was built over 150 years ago and hasn’t overflowed yet. It’s lock controlled. Gives one plenty of time to observe extra high tides.

This has been an enormously entertaining thread so far! Thanks everyone who has so far contributed. Willis, great commentary, and about on par with my own opinions. I noticed in your list of reasons to not respect hansen, you missed his flying to a foreign country to give testimony in a court of law that the vandals on trial were acting for a good cause.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/

By the way, to the pedants who didn’t notice, not only do I not use a title of respect for the man, I refuse to even capitalize his name.

Well haven’t we all got a little hot under the collar here. Even Willis has resorted to calling someone a “prick”.

All very undignified.

I called him that because he ADVOCATED THROWING ME IN JAIL FOR MY SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS.

Please, give me a better word for a man who does that. The only one that comes to mind is Stalinist.

But truly, Jason, if he’d advocated throwing you in jail for your scientific beliefs … what would you call him? “Ethically impaired”? “Anti-humanitarian”? He has publicly called for my incarceration. I have publicly called him a prick for doing that, that is so far over the line of scientific or any propriety. He is an employee of the state advocating that the state imprison me … and YOU’RE UPSET WITH ME because I’m not concerned about his feelings? If you think that my words were “undignified” (and likely you’re right, when my blood gets angrified I sometimes get intemperate and wax wroth), you should imagine what my thoughts are about the man.

I await your preferable word that you feel adequately describes a man who would call for your incarceration. Until then, I’ll stand by mine. Throw me in jail for my scientific beliefs? That’s thought police territory. Give me your name for it, I’ll retract mine if it is better. Bring it on, how would you describe him 100% honestly? “Slightly misguided”? What?

When I threw my 37ft Sunseeker into reverse this Sunday, the sea washed over the bathing platform, and my props almost struck the bottom of the river.

If that isn’t sea level rise out of control, I dont know what is!

Another Bad Boat Boy … we don’t care if you have a 37 foot Sunseeker. We don’t care a bit. We are totally uninterested, and not one iota jealous of the bathing platform. Those are mere worldly manifestations, we don’t wish we had such crass materialistic things, we’re beyond that.

However, we’re overjoyed to be asked out on our friends’ boats, and scrub the deck afterwards …

w.

PS—Typed without using the word H + 1. Makes me sound like the queen of england using the royal “we” …

From his ‘Abstract’=
‘…..that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for…‘

That’s a debating technique a well known British socialist (Tony Benn) used a lot in his debates; slip in something small but quite absurd at the very start of the debate, then, at the conclusion of your ‘debate’, you somehow find yourself trapped into agreeing with it. Maybe you either didn’t spot the ‘wrong-ness’ at the start or thought you could correct it during the ensuing debate.
Hansen’s ‘wrongness’ is the sea level out of our control. He should have been pulled up then with the question…”When was sea level ever under our control?” because then and if he can’t answer it, anything he says after that has no legs to stand on..

Holden’s forty year time-lapse took me back to when I was a a very small boy. I loved the old city trams (double-deck streetcars) that were about to be replaced by buses. I took a piece of card my mother used for ironing ties and scrawled on it “THE TRAMS SHALL NOT BE TOOK OFF UNTIL NOT THIS DECEMBER BUT THE NEXT DECEMBER” – which for any small child is about as far away as never. We used to regularly unearth that bit of card for many years after. — The problem was, that’s about when they were “took off”!

Willis. Since you seem to want to focus on James Hansen a bit in this post, with continual references to things like ‘over the last 25 years’ etc. The question is ‘Your point being?’.

You do realise don’t you that the basic science of AGW was established while James Hansen was still an undergraduate. And Al Gore was in high school.

What is your view about the contribution of some of the following pioneers? Plass, Suess, Wetherald, Revelle, Manabe, Keeling. Most important thing about all these guys, let alone earlier workers like Hulbert, Callender, Chamberlain, etc.

You do know what all these people did don’t you? And you have conveyed that to the readership here at WUWT haven’t you? Just to be sure your readership are well informed.

Willis. Since you seem to want to focus on James Hansen a bit in this post, with continual references to things like ‘over the last 25 years’ etc. The question is ‘Your point being?’.

Thanks, Glen. My point is that based on specious claims and failed forecasts Hansen and others have proposed to deprive the poor of the world of inexpensive energy vital for their development. The “25 years” refers to how long they have been trying unsuccessfully to make their scientific case. What is your point?

You do realise don’t you that the basic science of AGW was established while James Hansen was still an undergraduate. And Al Gore was in high school.

As far as I can see, the “basic science of AGW” has never been established. See my discussion of the problems with the underlying math of modern AGW claims here as one fundamental problem among many. Many further references available upon request.

What is your view about the contribution of some of the following pioneers? Plass, Suess, Wetherald, Revelle, Manabe, Keeling. Most important thing about all these guys, let alone earlier workers like Hulbert, Callender, Chamberlain, etc.

You do know what all these people did don’t you? And you have conveyed that to the readership here at WUWT haven’t you? Just to be sure your readership are well informed.

Sorry, I’m not into reminiscing about how back in the day there actually used to be science in climate science. Candy bars used to be a dime then too … so what do either have to do with today? I suspect my readers know both of those things in any case. The problem is what’s happening now.

Eric Anderson said:
Willis, may I humbly suggest that in the future to avoid this issue you use the royal “We”! :)
==================================
Good idea. We all know Willis well enough. He could go a bit further with WE—after all, they are his initials :)

Do excuse me Willis you typed ” Makes me sound like the queen of england using the royal “we”.

As a Brit I should point out the its “Queen of England” (actually its of Great Britain but the Scots seem to want out so there you go!) and its the the Royal “We” .
Just thought I would help our old colonists out out ;-)

You see yonder fellow called ‘a lord,’
Who struts, and stares, and all that?
Though hundreds worship at his word,
He is but a dolt for all that.
For all that, and all that,
His ribboned, star, and all that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at all that.

A prince can make a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, and all that!
But an honest man is above his might –
Good faith, he must not fault that
For all that, and all that,
Their dignities, and all that,
The pith of sense and pride of worth
Are higher rank than all that.

Richard111 says:
October 24, 2011 at 12:06 am
For no charge here is this layman’s view of sea level rise. To raise sea level just one metre will require the melting of ~400,000 cubic kilometres of land borne ice.

Thermal expansion is another way of getting sea level rise.

I am curious where you got your ~400,000 number from, as I posted some calculations recently on a thread on WUWT that looked like the following:

How can there be snow in August, Not-So-Smart- guy, when the Climate Team TOLD us that little children would NEVER get to see snow? Oh I forgot, that was when the mantra was Global Warming…before they changed it to Climate Disruption. Pretty tricky eh? ;-)

Regarding all the blather on Mr./Dr.? Hansen’s educational credentials, I read somewhere that a PhD. is someone who studies more and more about less and less until eventually he/she knows everything there is about nothing. There , now all of you with doctorates can feel equally insulted.

I have known quite a few holders of PhDs in my time and the one who received most respect from me was one who used his title only when mixing with his peer group at specialist conferences. This person ran a very successful British business operating internationally. He had two versions of his business card, one with his qualification and the other with his business title.

I believe that he felt that his academic qualification mattered when discussing his specialist subject with peers, but beyond that was largely irrelevant. I agree.

So when Dr Hansen is offering opinions on the subject of his PhD – as I understsand it, the impact of dust as an insulator on the Venusian atmosphere – then his PhD has relevance. When he is engaged in quasi-political activity, then I would see no reason to consider him as other than plain and simple Mr.

At the time Hansen was researching Venusian atmosphere I was asked to leave my university after I had become totally disillusioned with academe. I had gone expecting to be part of the search for new knowledge and understanding of the universe. I can trace the start of my disillusion to being told by one of the staff that if I could not get the results expected from a particular electronics experiment, then I should copy them from someone who did. Further investigation on my part showed that the results I had obtained were valid, (and indeed, interesting) but were not what was required. It seemed that this university required conformism rather than an enquiring mind and the course of my life changed, as did my respect for academic qualifications.

What we are seeing now from so many of the “leaders” of climate research is nothing but academic conformism, driven by concern for their departments, their funding and their standing within their peer groups. Their fear of loss in any of these areas has driven them to become arrogant, self-publicising and aggressive. These are natural responses to the insecurity of their position, so we should be magnanimous and patient with them.

As an aside, isn’t it interesting that in medicine in the UK, doctors are called Doctor until they reach a sufficiently senior, consultant, level when they insist on being call Mr.

You type “I” a lot. You can’t do that, and you have to use the passive voice. You can’t say, “I observed…”, you have to say “It has been observed [Me 2011]…”. If you can learn to talk like that, someone would probably come around and award you a doctorate. Wouldn’t that be a thrill? It would make your writing less entertaining though, so I hope you won’t do it! (besides, a REAL doctor can prescribe narcotics)

The convolution and vagueness of those criticizing Willis is like the Occupy message, only worse.

They avoid the most germane elements while failing miserably to recognize significance.
Is this the alarmists’ missing gene? The gene which allows a person the judgement to perceive and measure significance?
I”ve observed this defect in many debates with those prone to be on board the AGW movement and it carries over to essentially every other arena of disagreement as well.

“Respect them? Those guys are trying to destroy us, because we object to them destroying the world’s economy, and you want us to respect them? What have you been smoking? I have no respect for them at all, and unlike some people, I’m unwilling to pretend that I do.”

“Hansen’s forecasting track record has been woeful. If he were working in private enterprise, he would have been sacked by now. Willis, please keep up the excellent work in exposing this incompetent idiot.”

Yet more defamatory material “getting through” moderation.

This site is attracting some very extreme and completely puerile commentary. You should be wondering why this is.

I make a mistake with spelling, Anthony Watts makes the ultimate scientific Clanger with his UHI theories. You should be spending more time researching climate science rather than correcting English. You’ve shown you’re far better at the latter already.

REPLY: You say you come here for humor, and yet you still refuse to see any humor in the situation or to pay attention to the link. I find that funny. Your actions are typical of those of anonymous cowards. Vitriol, no substance. hiding behind fake name. Check back in a few months when we’ve published the latest paper. I look forward to your comments then. – Anthony

“Hansen’s forecasting track record has been woeful. If he were working in private enterprise, he would have been sacked by now. Willis, please keep up the excellent work in exposing this incompetent idiot.”

Yet more defamatory material “getting through” moderation.

This site is attracting some very extreme and completely puerile commentary. You should be wondering why this is.

Defamatory? I’m sorry, Exp, perhaps you don’t realize that in the US, the truth is a perfect defense for the claim of defamation. In other words, as in this case, you can’t defame a man by telling the truth about him. If he made that many failed predictions, in fact he would have been fired by now from almost any organization I know of … except the US Gov’t … and the UN …

Don’t like it? Fine. Think it’s “defamatory”? Get a grip, you’d fire him yourself for those kinds of egregiously wrong predictions.

As to the “very extreme and completely puerile commentary” making it through moderation, I’d agree, you’ve described your post perfectly. What do you propose that we do with people like you? Ban y’all entirely? Nope. We allow just about anyone’s voice to be heard here, whether they are as extreme and puerile as you or not. That’s the scientific way, we don’t censor and ban folks like Tamino and RealClimate do for scientific comments. You have to be a real jerk, with no scientific content to your posts, to get snipped here.

“Respect them? Those guys are trying to destroy us, because we object to them destroying the world’s economy, and you want us to respect them? What have you been smoking? I have no respect for them at all, and unlike some people, I’m unwilling to pretend that I do.”

I didn’t say real scientists don’t deserve my respect. I said James Hansen and his ilk don’t deserve anyone’s respect. They are trying to deny the poor of the planet the energy that they desperately need to claw their way out of the gutter. If you respect that, you’re sick.

Is there a “conspiracy”? Well, not in general, it’s just a host of sufferers from a common disease, Climatic Noble Cause Corruption.

There was a conspiracy by the Climategate folks, to do several things. Far from being an “idiotically [sic] conspiracy theory”, it was demonstrated and amply proven by the Climategate emails. Among other things, they conspired to destroy the evidence of their conspiratorial actions, clear evidence of a conspiracy. They’re convicted by their own words in the emails, Exp, wherein they boast of what the conspiracy achieved … you really should follow these kinds of details more closely, not doing so makes you look foolish and unprepared for questions and challenges to your revealed wisdom.

w.

PS—They also conspired to deny my FOI request, and the Brits said if the statute of limitations hadn’t run out, they would have been criminally charged … no conspiracy? Get real.

And it all boils down to – as Mencken said,:
The whole idea of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamouring to be led to safety, by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary

Perhaps it is time to begin using a new term to describe Dr Hansen and his ilk, I suggest: Climate Fundamentalist

Hmmm … the only problem I can see with your suggested formulation is that continuing to speak of “climate [whatever]” often seems to result in claims and (sometimes interminable) discussions of the blindingly obvious (viz BEST’s PR blitz)! Unfortunately, this often clouds the … uh … fundamental …leap of fath one must invariably make in order to accept the tenet of (human generated) CO2 as the primary “culprit”.

May I suggest “Human Carbon Dioxide Fundamentalist” (or HCDF for short) as an alternative new term?!

Peter Plail states “As an aside, isn’t it interesting that in medicine in the UK, doctors are called Doctor until they reach a sufficiently senior, consultant, level when they insist on being call Mr. This isn’t correct. The title Mr is used by surgeons not by practitioners in other branches of medicine

“To increase the reported level of Global Warming, Hansen’s crew at NASA GISS diddled with the US Temperature data record. (Hansen headed GISS for decades, and still heads it, at my expense and that of other US taxpayers.)”
_________________
I am kind of skeptical of that. Are there any news articles that say Hansen has done this?

“Move on to his testifying in court in favor of violence against people who disagree with him.”

_______________

Whoa, really? I am a bit skeptical of that remark. I would have to see the testimony that you are talking about.

See here and here. Hansen’s claim is that criminal trespass is perfectly fine if you are saving the world. This is pretty much the textbook definition of Noble Cause Corruption, where you believe that anything you might do is justified by the nobility of your actions.

On the other hand, he has publicly said that he wants me (not personally, but because of my beliefs and my occupation at the time) to be jailed for “crimes against humanity” or some such double-speak booshwa.

So per Jimmy, his criminal mates should go free and instead I should be jailed … and you are defending the guy.

“To increase the reported level of Global Warming, Hansen’s crew at NASA GISS diddled with the US Temperature data record. (Hansen headed GISS for decades, and still heads it, at my expense and that of other US taxpayers.)”
_________________
I am kind of skeptical of that. Are there any news articles that say Hansen has done this?

otter17, it is good to be skeptical – welcome to our club.

Please read my comment again and follow the links I provided for better proof than “any news articles that say Hansen has done this”. I have better proof that the US temperature record was indeed diddled, and my proof is from Hansen’s crew themselves, and I provided links to it in the posting you cited.

1) The images in my blink graphic were downloaded from the official GISS website, and the details behind them are in my WUWT posting at this link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/the-past-is-not-what-it-used-to-be-gw-tiger-tale/. Why ask for a second-hand newspaper report when you can see, with your own eyes, that the US temperature record has been changed, according to the men (and women – Makiko is female) who actually did it and posted their original and altered data on their official website.

2) The email text I have embedded in my second graphic were downloaded from the website of the organization that pursued the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and the details behind that official internal GISS email are in my WUWT posting at this link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/do-we-care-if-2010-is-the-warmist-year-in-history/ that I also provided above. Here, in Dr. Makiko Sato’s own writing, are the details of SEVEN analyses by her and others at GISS, showing how a 0.5ºC difference between a very hot oldie (1934) and a recent warm year (1998) was re-re-re-re-re-re-analysed until it disappeared!

The amazing thing to me is that this did not make it to the front pages of newspapers and TV reports. But, I guess it is too technical and not PC.

What we are seeing now from so many of the “leaders” of climate research is nothing but academic conformism, driven by concern for their departments, their funding and their standing within their peer groups.

Naked men, all of them.

I do enjoy, the look of astonishment, when I suggest warmists are the new age conformists. “After all, they are out there agitating for change.” is invariably the response. (sigh). Naked people, all of them. GK

“See here and here. Hansen’s claim is that criminal trespass is perfectly fine if you are saving the world.”
______
Oh, criminal trespass. I thought you said violence. Anyway, you are referring to his protest actions.

“On the other hand, he has publicly said that he wants me (not personally, but because of my beliefs and my occupation at the time) to be jailed for “crimes against humanity” or some such double-speak booshwa.”
_________
What was your occupation at the time when he made this statement? I believe his view is that the high crimes against humanity are against those that know of the risks involved with climate change, yet did not act to reduce CO2 anyway. In your case, you do not see any risks since you are fighting a climate war against Hansen and others.

“So per Jimmy, his criminal mates should go free and instead I should be jailed … and you are defending the guy.”
___________
I wasn’t defending him in that instance. I was skeptical of your statement, but open to the evidence that you had to bear.

“See here and here. Hansen’s claim is that criminal trespass is perfectly fine if you are saving the world.”

______
Oh, criminal trespass. I thought you said violence. Anyway, you are referring to his protest actions.

Otter, suppose me and half a dozen mates came to your house and started climbing the outside, and you came outside and told us to leave. We said ‘No, we’re on a mission from God’, and we unfurled a banner saying “AGW EXTREMISTS ARE KILLING THE POOR’. We stretched it out and nailed to your roof so it hung down and all the neighbors could see it. Then we chained ourselves to your roof and refused to leave.

I suppose you could say that no violence was done to you. But there was violence done to your privacy, your peace, and your security. The folks were convicted of “Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Criminal Trespass.” Hansen thinks that someone nailing pro-Exxon banners on your house is perfectly OK on the condition that someone really really believes it is the noble thing to do. If they truly believe, then no harm, no foul, they unchain themselves from your roof and go do it to someone else’s house, or boat, or place of business.

Me, I think different, whether you call it “violence” or not.

“On the other hand, he has publicly said that he wants me (not personally, but because of my beliefs and my occupation at the time) to be jailed for “crimes against humanity” or some such double-speak booshwa.”

_________
What was your occupation at the time when he made this statement? I believe his view is that the high crimes against humanity are against those that know of the risks involved with climate change, yet did not act to reduce CO2 anyway. In your case, you do not see any risks since you are fighting a climate war against Hansen and others.

I was Chief Financial Officer with a seat on the Board of Directors of a fossil energy company, his exact target. And the idea that I would be exempted because I don’t think there are risks is pettifoggery. Here’s his quote:

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

He’s already tried us in his mind, he is sure that we “know what [we] are doing”, and that we are “aware of the long-term consequences”. I fit the picture, I knew what I was doing, and I’m well aware of his claims about the long-term consequences. In short, I’m the man in the wanted poster, the guy he wants convicted and thrown in the slammer.

“So per Jimmy, his criminal mates should go free and instead I should be jailed … and you are defending the guy.”

___________
I wasn’t defending him in that instance. I was skeptical of your statement, but open to the evidence that you had to bear.

Please read my comment again and follow the links I provided for better proof than “any news articles that say Hansen has done this”.

_____________

I saw that you had links to WUWT, but I am skeptical of WUWT’s analysis. I want to see some form of independent investigation.

Otter, from the sounds of it you are not skeptical of WUWT’s analysis, you avoiding WUWT’s analysis. That’s not skepticism. That’s deliberate blindness.

Read the dang link, and then apply your properly skeptical mind to the claims. You’re a sharp guy, you can analyze claims. Do they make sense? Did the author cite them? Do they fit with your experience? How much is opinion and how much is verifiable fact? You know the drill, or at least you should.

Then, if you find the errors, report back. That’s how WUWT gets improved, by people who are actually skeptical, as opposed to people who are just avoiding doing the heavy lifting of thinking about and investigating the issues.

Willis said Read the dang link, and then apply your properly skeptical mind to the claims.

OK. I did that. Found two links in Ira’s post on WUWT. One shows a blinking gif between “US temperature 1999” and “continental US annual mean anomalies”. Neither graph is referenced, even though their titles alone indicate that these are two different beasts. That does not withhold Ira from stating that NASA “changes the historical temperature data to make the present Global Warming situation appear worse than it really is”, and refering to a concept Ira calls “CAGW”, which is neither defined nor referenced.

If anyone finds the “verifiable facts” that Willis is asking for in Ira’s post, then please present them. In absense of that, Ira’s post seems to be a heavily biased form of a mix of opinion and ignorance, neither of which have anything to do with the facts that NASA actually present.

“They, the global warming crowd, think US citizens just fell off the turnip wagon and are stupid ignoramuses who will believe stupid things or almost anything. They think all they need to do is find out how to make us believe without proof.”
————————–

We elected, as President of the United States, a man who had no qualifications for the position, and who had several clear disqualifiers which were transparently “hidden” from us by a facially prostituted “press.”

So, while I’m not defending their honesty or intelligence or scientific rigor, I believe that they had at least some foundation for believing that we “just fell off the turnip wagon and are stupid ignoramuses who will believe stupid things.”

In the case of AGW, it so far hasn’t worked, but that by itself doesn’t discredit the belief.

Wombat says:
October 23, 2011 at 7:06 pm
…..The US has leveraged its economic hegemony to propagate intellectual property laws on the rest of the world that are designed to stifle development. The quickest route to limiting their power is, as you suggest, purge the government and preferably schooling system of science.
_____________________________________
It has already been done.

No teacher, but every textbook, left behind

“….More generally, the quality of the twelve most popular science textbooks for middle-schoolers is so low, Hubisz concluded, that none had an acceptable level of accuracy….

An exasperated William Bennetta explained why so many teachers accept inferior textbooks from these publishers, “[T]he major schoolbook companies… have long recognized that the teacher corps in America includes some desperate dumbbells, and the companies have learned to produce books that the dumbbells will like….

“For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. “In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we’re around average, and by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.”http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htm

“… Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.” http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_JunkFoodDiet.pdf

“…the U.S. ranks 21st out of 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in mathematics scores, with nearly one-quarter of students unable to solve the easiest level of questions….In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework”http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_JunkFoodDiet.pdf

Please read my comment again and follow the links I provided for better proof than “any news articles that say Hansen has done this”.
_____________

I saw that you had links to WUWT, but I am skeptical of WUWT’s analysis. I want to see some form of independent investigation.
___________________________________________

Otter reread what Doctor Glickstein, just said.

The pointers are to articles he wrote and posted on WUWT about the subjects and those articles contain the links back to the original material as well as a much longer explanation.

To save space people will point you to a relevant article at WUWT BECAUSE it has the links (several) and a good explanation OR because in the case of Willis and others like Dr. Roy Spenser, it contains original work.

Please take a look at the linked articles, there is a heck of a lot of good info that gets posted at this site and then reviewed by scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

Willis said Read the dang link, and then apply your properly skeptical mind to the claims….

If anyone finds the “verifiable facts” that Willis is asking for in Ira’s post, then please present them. In absense of that, Ira’s post seems to be a heavily biased form of a mix of opinion and ignorance, neither of which have anything to do with the facts that NASA actually present.
__________________________________
AND NOW you understand why the climate gang dances around FOIA requests, wipes the data from computers, lost the data….. Only by screen capture and down loading and saving data did skeptics have a chance of grabbing that data as Ira did.

It is why WUWT/skeptics were so gleeful over the climategate e-mails. We KNEW but could not prove to others they were doing as Hansen did “reworking the data periodically”

I did a copy and paste of a document (including date written) only to go back and find it had been changed WITHOUT CHANGING THE ISSUE DATE!

This type of thing has happened numerous times not only with USDA/FDA but with UN and EU documentation. If we find a nugget the internet copy immediately disappears or changes and farmers are called Dis-Information agents (Bruce Knight)

CAGW and NAIS (Animal Traceability) are two different battleground in the same war and you find the SAME actors such as AL GORE and the World Bank in both.

My Ag Extension agent was an eye witness to this statement by Gore.“…from the Ag Journal, Billings, Montana: “At a recent ceremony at the White House, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore let slip what many have long believed was his real intention as regards to U.S. agriculture.

“While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.” http://mi-cherries.com/did2.htm

Kissinger summed up the battle plans in 1970:“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

Willis is being nice, I call these people MURDERERS. They are no different than those who went up on trial after World War II. Actually I find them WORSE> Hansen Jones Mann and Gore are as responsible for the death of Friday Mukamperezida as the person who lit the fire.,because it is their brutal hoax that lead to his death and they are the one raking in the blood money.

“Otter, from the sounds of it you are not skeptical of WUWT’s analysis, you avoiding WUWT’s analysis. That’s not skepticism. That’s deliberate blindness.”
_______________

No, I looked at it. I am on the fence. I would like to see some other expert analysis from outside the WUWT community, just to confirm. I have never heard of this deliberate data fudging claim before or seen it in the news. If it was true, why doesn’t Dr. Glickstein send it to a trusted investigative journalist and to expert scientists for confirmation? Wouldn’t it increase the impact factor substantially if people around the USA saw this in the news? Wouldn’t that likely get Hansen fired? Wouldn’t that help win the climate war you are fighting?

“He’s already tried us in his mind, he is sure that we “know what [we] are doing”, and that we are “aware of the long-term consequences”. I fit the picture, I knew what I was doing, and I’m well aware of his claims about the long-term consequences. In short, I’m the man in the wanted poster, the guy he wants convicted and thrown in the slammer.”
__________________

I also disagree with Hansen’s quote. I don’t think it was worded correctly. I would have to see expert psychological analysis on this subject, but it may be more likely that oil company executives have what is known as confirmation bias. They highly favor information that rejects climate science because their pre-existing perception was that fossil fuels are paths to prosperity for the world. For example, say a piece of climate science evidence comes along that indicates sea level is going to rise by a few meters (causing some environmental and economic harm throughout the world), an oil company executive may be likely to discount that information or blame the scientist who created it as being incompetent (even if the statement is true). There could be cognitive dissonance between the idea that climate change is occurring due to their product, and the idea that they are producing a product that brings comfort and prosperity to people.

Quote from Wikipedia:
“Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

A great scientist should always be conscious of confirmation bias. A great scientist should always question his/her own motives and pre-existing beliefs. Nevertheless, slight biases will always occur in even the most honest of humans. The peer review process works so well since it essentially averages the research and conclusions of many different scientists, allowing their individual biases to diminish. Thus, the body of scientific knowledge produced is greater than the sum of its parts. The papers and research that are the cream of the crop are then reviewed by prestigious academies such as the National Academy of Sciences, who then from time to time produce statements on the outcome of the scientific process. One such statement is linked below.http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

I offer a quote from the great scientist Richard Feynman that I apply to myself from time to time. I invite everyone to also give it some thought as well.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
— Richard Feynman

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 24, 2011 at 11:01 pm
_________________
“Otter, from the sounds of it you are not skeptical of WUWT’s analysis, you avoiding WUWT’s analysis. That’s not skepticism. That’s deliberate blindness.”

“Otter, suppose me and half a dozen mates came to your house and started climbing the outside, and you came outside and told us to leave. ”
____________________
Yes, Willis. I disagree with this form of protest as well. I believe that it turns some people off to the message and that it distracts police forces. I believe that the folks that own the coal plants truly believe that they are doing no wrong by emitting CO2, and thus they will feel further antagonized and alienated by these type of protests. I believe they could have performed a protest just outside the property near the entrance, similar to a worker’s strike.

“He’s already tried us in his mind, he is sure that we “know what [we] are doing”, and that we are “aware of the long-term consequences”. I fit the picture, I knew what I was doing, and I’m well aware of his claims about the long-term consequences. In short, I’m the man in the wanted poster, the guy he wants convicted and thrown in the slammer.”

__________________

I also disagree with Hansen’s quote. I don’t think it was worded correctly. I would have to see expert psychological analysis on this subject, but it may be more likely that oil company executives have what is known as confirmation bias. They highly favor information that rejects climate science because their pre-existing perception was that fossil fuels are paths to prosperity for the world. For example, say a piece of climate science evidence comes along that indicates sea level is going to rise by a few meters (causing some environmental and economic harm throughout the world), an oil company executive may be likely to discount that information or blame the scientist who created it as being incompetent (even if the statement is true). There could be cognitive dissonance between the idea that climate change is occurring due to their product, and the idea that they are producing a product that brings comfort and prosperity to people.

The twisted, ever-changing logic of the path through your paragraph was lovely. Ostensibly it’s in response to my pointing out that Hansen was calling for my imprisonment. You joyfully segue from Hansen saying I should be tossed in jail, to saying you “disagree” with his quote, then without saying what you disagree with you move on to saying that Hansen’s quote wasn’t “worded correctly”, and then you jump to the idea that you’d need expert psychological analysis for “this subject”, then without explaining just who or what “this subject” is that’s being psychoanalyzed you slide on down to the topic of confirmation bias, you follow that by performing a lovely glissade over to the issue of how oil company executives suffer from confirmation bias relating to sea level rise, and for the grand finale and dismount, you suggest that the dissonance afflicting the oil company executives is collateral damage as a result of their mental gears stripping from trying to follow the twisted, ever-changing logic of the path through your paragraph …

Next time some world-renowned scientist says he wants his opponents, including me, thrown in prison for our beliefs … remind me not to mention it to you. “Missed the point” doesn’t begin to describe it.

“Next time some world-renowned scientist says he wants his opponents, including me, thrown in prison for our beliefs … remind me not to mention it to you. “Missed the point” doesn’t begin to describe it.”
_____________

Ok, then. I shall rework it such that we can understand one another.

I disagree with Hansen’s quote since he asserts that fossil fuel company executives know what they are doing and that they should be tried for crimes. I contend that they do not know what they are doing, and thus shouldn’t be punished in a court. I contend that they truly believe they are doing what is best for the world (albeit I say that belief is mistaken). It is possible that in their minds, they have thoroughly convinced themselves that there is no problem with emitting CO2 into the air, and that scientists that say otherwise are wrong and may represent a threat.

What I meant by needing to see expert psychological analysis was that I would like to investigate and see if fossil fuel company executives are exhibiting signs that they may be employing confirmation bias or undergoing significant cognitive dissonance. It seems that they highly favor information that rejects climate change because their pre-existing perception is that fossil fuels are paths to prosperity for the world.

Now, I truly do not want to hurt you personally or harm your reputation by saying this, Willis, but ask yourself if you may be employing confirmation bias to justify your very strong opinions on climate science. Ask if there is some chance that you are fooling yourself. It is ok to admit when one is wrong, everybody is from time to time. I believed that human-caused global warming was unlikely for a while, too, but I took an honest look at my beliefs. It was tough, but I changed my entire perspective on something I was deeply entrenched in since the evidence won out.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
– Richard Feynman

“Next time some world-renowned scientist says he wants his opponents, including me, thrown in prison for our beliefs … remind me not to mention it to you. “Missed the point” doesn’t begin to describe it.”

_____________

Ok, then. I shall rework it such that we can understand one another.

I disagree with Hansen’s quote since he asserts that fossil fuel company executives know what they are doing and that they should be tried for crimes. I contend that they do not know what they are doing, and thus shouldn’t be punished in a court. I contend that they truly believe they are doing what is best for the world (albeit I say that belief is mistaken). It is possible that in their minds, they have thoroughly convinced themselves that there is no problem with emitting CO2 into the air, and that scientists that say otherwise are wrong and may represent a threat.

otter, I’m a man who was a fossil fuel company executive. I know other fossil fuel company executives from around the world, Brits, Koreans, Aussies, Americans. Put your speculations away, you’re clueless about what they believe. Generally, they think the AGW alarmists have their heads so far up their fundamental orifices that if they removed them suddenly they’d go snowblind.

They also know that they sell the fuel that lets James Hansen live his fine lifestyle, and that if they stopped doing selling him the fuel, little Jimmy would clutch his pearls and have the vapors from the inconvenience and throw a tantrum. As would any of us.

They also know he’s quite willing to abuse them for doing exactly what he wants them to do, supply James with gas for his car and kerosene so he can fly to England to testify in favor of conspirators.

Generally, the executives I knew didn’t have a firm idea either way about whether CO2 will cause Thermageddon in 50 years. They do know that lack of energy will cause starvation in zero years, and that expensive energy today means poor people go hungry tonight. Curiously, they see that benefit today as more important than some possible harm in 50 years, and I agree with them.

Finally, you still don’t get it. Hansen has publicly called for his opponents to be thrown in jail. Decent men condemn that totalitarian call, it is un-American, anti-free speech, and redolent of oppression and McCarthyism. Not to mention that it is a scientist’s nightmare, as it was the habit of the worst historical regimes to imprison people for their scientific beliefs.

Honest men oppose people who call for trials for their scientific opponents, with all their might.

People like you try to explain their statements.

Which is why I said that if someone does it again, I won’t bother telling you. You’ll just stand their and try over and over to tell me how it’s all logical and reasonable and has to do with cognitive dissonance and self-deception on the part of the oil company executives … there’s self-deception going on, but it’s not the executives …

It’s not logical or reasonable to call for the incarceration of your opponents. It is an ugly, divisive, anti-human call, born of a sick desire to see his opponents, including me, punished by the police forces of the very Government that employs him. Making that call is the sign of a vicious man whose ego knows no bounds … spare me your explanations, otter. They are meaningless and depressing. Have you no honor, no outrage, no revulsion at his call for police oppression of his opponents?

Willis has, for him, been remarkably restrained in his reply. I assume that you don’t use carbon/co2 in any shape or form. You don’t run a car. You never travel on planes. Your food mysteriuusly appears on your plate without the need for it to be grown, distributed or transported. That you would refuse the services of any vehicle using fossil fiel, be it from police fire or ambulance. I also asume that you don’t use heating of any description.

If you are a user -and whilst much more modest in your habits than arch hypocrites Hansen and Gore who consume more carbon than any of us can conceivre of-you are still guilty of being a user.

Perhaps you can tell us what we REALISTICALLY substitute it with for the next 30/40 years without bankrupting ourselves to no effect?

The plain fact is that DR Manns hockey stick showing a dramatic increase in temperature from 1900 was always sinaccurate. As BEST show, the warming goes all the way back to their start point of 1800. My own research shows, it goes back to 1607.
Either Berkely is wrong or the hockey stick is wrong. Which one do you want to go with?
tonyb

“Put your speculations away, you’re clueless about what they believe. Generally, they think the AGW alarmists have their heads so far up their fundamental orifices that if they removed them suddenly they’d go snowblind.”

“Have you no honor, no outrage, no revulsion at his call for police oppression of his opponents?”
_____________
Yeah I was in agreement with you. I’m sure fossil fuel company executives have truly convinced themselves that the climate scientists have their heads up their collective butts.

I said that I disagree with Hansen’s statement about jailing folks. He shouldn’t have said that. He made a big mistake, for sure. I’m sure you have made an accusatory statement a few times in your life so far. Hey, I have too; we let our emotions get to us sometimes. If Hansen starts sending prosecuting attorneys after you, then I think you have reason to complain. For now, let’s just say that his statement is stupid. What about commenters in blogs that have expressed their belief that climate scientists should be jailed without trial? I’m not outraged at them; I realize they made a stupid statement.

Please, have you asked yourself if you may be employing confirmation bias? Have you asked yourself if there is even a slight possibility that global warming due to burning fossil fuels may cause harm that could put a fairly substantial drain on the economy (thus hurting the poor)?

“Willis has, for him, been remarkably restrained in his reply. I assume that you don’t use carbon/co2 in any shape or form. You don’t run a car.”
______________

Well then, I would hate to see him on a bad day, haha.

Yes, I am a user. I live in the United States and I use energy derived from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, my electricity comes from renewable energy since I opted to use Viridian as my generation supplier. My car is a Prius, soon to be a Nissan Leaf or Ford Focus Electric. I don’t own a TV or cable box. I have disconnected all vampire electricity loads. I have LED lightbulbs. I don’t need air conditioning in the summer since my apartment is a basement unit. I also don’t need all that much electricity for heat in the winter. I ride my bicycle to work and often around town within a 5-15 mile radius. I use substantially less fossil fuel energy than the average.American, and I am happy with my life.

“Perhaps you can tell us what we REALISTICALLY substitute it with for the next 30/40 years without bankrupting ourselves to no effect?”
Energy efficiency measures can substantially reduce the amount of energy used, especially in the electricity sector, they also have the quickest return on investment. There are a wide variety of energy efficiency systems/solutions, too many to get into detail here. For generating electricity, a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture, hydro, and sustainable biomass. Furthermore, the transportation sector should focus on electric vehicles for cars and light trucks and biofuel for heavier equipment such as semi trucks, ships, airplanes. The biofuel should NOT be grown on arable land, but should be developed from algae on desert or marginal land (or I have heard it could be grown in bio-reactors in a factory setting). The algae biofuel would probably need the most R&D. The USA started a program to fund algae biofuel during the 70’s oil crisis, but it was abandoned after the crisis.

“My own research shows, it goes back to 1607.
Either Berkely is wrong or the hockey stick is wrong. Which one do you want to go with?”

Unless your analysis that proves either of those two wrong is peer reviewed in a journal, I am not going to take your word for it.

REPLY:All the conservation, and yet you are up at 3AM EST running your computer to spout silly comments here. Way to use electricity dude! Go to bed. – Anthony

I am getting other work done in between comments. Plus, I have been icing my knee that I injured recently. Besides, this comment was brought to you by wind power. Why are my comments silly if I present potential solutions to reduce CO2? It seems like intelligent conversation to me.

REPLY: Brought to us by wind power? No wonder it blows! Ha! – I’ll help you get to sleep by putting your comments in the zzz que. Then when you get a good nights sleep I’ll turn them back on. Go to bed kid. – Anthony

“Put your speculations away, you’re clueless about what they believe. Generally, they think the AGW alarmists have their heads so far up their fundamental orifices that if they removed them suddenly they’d go snowblind.”

“Have you no honor, no outrage, no revulsion at his call for police oppression of his opponents?”

_____________
Yeah I was in agreement with you. I’m sure fossil fuel company executives have truly convinced themselves that the climate scientists have their heads up their collective butts.

I said that I disagree with Hansen’s statement about jailing folks. He shouldn’t have said that. He made a big mistake, for sure. I’m sure you have made an accusatory statement a few times in your life so far. Hey, I have too; we let our emotions get to us sometimes.

Well, let me check my history … have I publicly called for my opponents to be tried and thrown in jail for their beliefs … hang on, still looking through the records … nope. Never done that.

If Hansen starts sending prosecuting attorneys after you, then I think you have reason to complain. For now, let’s just say that his statement is stupid.

So calls by a high government official for to throw me in jail are OK because no one has acted on it yet … curious. I suspect you might be a bit more concerned if he was calling for you to be thrown in the slammer. Me, I’ve never been in jail, and I never want to be in there again, it’s a peculiarity of mine that makes me sensitive to guys like Hansen abusing his position.

What about commenters in blogs that have expressed their belief that climate scientists should be jailed without trial? I’m not outraged at them; I realize they made a stupid statement.

Hansen is a world-renowned climate scientist who works for and represents the US Government. Comparing him to a random anonymous blog commenter is … well, I’ll just call it a false parallel and leave it there..

Please, have you asked yourself if you may be employing confirmation bias? Have you asked yourself if there is even a slight possibility that global warming due to burning fossil fuels may cause harm that could put a fairly substantial drain on the economy (thus hurting the poor)?

Good question indeed, otter. I truly don’t see how. The warming is slated to occur, according to AGW theory, at night in the winter in the extra-tropics. Ask a homeless person in New York if warmer nights in December would be bad for the poor …

IN addition, the tropics, where most of the poor live, have scarcely warmed at all. The UAH satellite temperature record for the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropics shows warming. For the tropics, on the other hand, it shows no statistically significant warming over the last 32 years.

The BEST data shows that the world warmed about 2°C over the last two centuries. Where is the loss to the poor (or to the plants and animals for that matter) in that warming? People sleeping warmer at night in the winter? Longer growing seasons in the extra-tropics? Where are the climate calamities from that 2° of warming? Where are the expansion of disease, the increase in floods, the huge numbers of storms, where are the calamities foretold from the dread 2°C temperature increase? We’ve seen the 2°C, according to BEST … but we haven’t seen the catastrophes.

So yes, I have asked myself if I am experiencing confirmation bias. I don’t think so, although of course any man’s testimony in that regard is automatically suspect …

“Good question indeed, otter. I truly don’t see how. The warming is slated to occur, according to AGW theory, at night in the winter in the extra-tropics. Ask a homeless person in New York if warmer nights in December would be bad for the poor …”
_______________

You are avoiding the question. Have you even considered the possibility that climate change due to burning fossil fuels may pose a drain on the economy?

otter, for a number of years I taught the village scale use of renewable energy. I am no opponent of renewables. I lived off the grid for 2 years, with panels and 12 two-volt batteries.

However, for the poor of the world, there is no substitute at present for fossil fuel. Nothing has the energy density. In the Solomon Islands, for example, most of the fuel drives outboard motors, because there are few roads and all goods travel by sea. The outboard motors also are the means for harvesting the fish upon which the nation depends.

And for those folks, all of the renewables mean nothing. You can’t replace an outboard motor with solar panels or a windmill, neither of those can do what the outboard can do.

The same thing is true for the city poor. A big coal-fired or natural gas plant cannot be replaced by solar or wind. Every megawatt of solar added means you need to add a megawatt of conventional power. And it’s expensive, adding either solar or wind ups the energy cost.

Finally, you recommend conservation. While that works well in the first world, where we have more than we can use, the idea would be met with whoops of laughter in the third world. There, nothing is wasted, every scrap is used. In Jamaica they turn off the taxi headlights whenever they don’t need them, to save fuel … and a few distant streetlights are the signal they don’t need headlights. Generally, there’s no low-hanging fruit from conservation in poor countries, that’s a first world possibility only.

otter17 says:
October 26, 2011 at 1:09 am
…
Have you even considered the possibility that climate change due to burning fossil fuels may pose a drain on the economy?

Hilaronic (hilariously ironic). Climate change hysteria has indeed caused profligate waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, down multiple rat-holes (from windmills to CCS), which has all come as a direct displacement and misplacement of funds that could have been doing actual work in the economy.

As for climate change “due to burning fossil fuels” itself, not a penny, not a sou in the real world. Only in witless extrapolations of computerized fantasies.

“Good question indeed, otter. I truly don’t see how. The warming is slated to occur, according to AGW theory, at night in the winter in the extra-tropics. Ask a homeless person in New York if warmer nights in December would be bad for the poor …”

_______________

You are avoiding the question. Have you even considered the possibility that climate change due to burning fossil fuels may pose a drain on the economy?

Sure, climate change is posing a huge drain on the economy already. The economies of Europe have been affected by the Kyoto Protocol, the US is now digging itself into the same pit with the EPA regulation of CO2 along with the California regulations of CO2, which also just went into effect.

So the answer to your question is clearly yes. The economic damage from the claim that climate will change from burning fossil fuels is already well underway.

Oh, wait … you asked , not for damage from the claims of AGW, but for actual damage from climate change due to burning fossil fuels. As soon as anyone shows that the climate does change from fossil fuels, we can discuss that. Up to now, there’s no evidence that it’s happening, and it’s hard to describe imaginary damages.

Oh, wait … you asked, not if climate changes from burning fossil fuels had done any actual damage, but IF it were possible that IF climate were actually changed by burning fossil fuels it might someday cause some kind of damage somewhere.

Sure. That chain of IF’s is possible, anythings possible. But odds? Well, the change in CO2 is supposed to warm the climate up to some mythical 2° or so. But the BEST data shows we’ve seen that rise in the last two centuries, with no adverse effects, and plenty of beneficial ones. So the odds of any kind of catastrophic change from a couple degrees warming seems like about zero to me. In fact, given our experience over the last 2 centuries, it seems that IF the AGW hypothesis is correct in principle, and IF it is also accurate that we might get a 2° temperature rise, then the odds seem to favor “net benefit” over “net loss”. Might not happen that way, but that’s the evidence we have for what a 2° temperature rise might do … and the answer is “damn little”. In fact, small enough that without thermometers we might not even notice a one or two degree warming.

Then you have to multiply that slight net benefit, might even be a slight net loss, by the odds that AGW is correct, and then by the odds that if it is correct we’ll see a 2° temperature rise.

The resulting number is small, otter. Very small. Contrast that to the damage that has already been done to the poor by the drag of the various Kyoto, EPA, carbon-tax, and other feel-good schemes. The AGW alarmists are causing lots of real harm to the poor, harm that will persist for decades, in the name of averting your fantasized Thermageddon fifty years from now that may never arrive.

Buying electricity for the home is likely to be a small part of your overall power usage. This is not intended to be snark, but I had never heard of Viridian before. It seems that to ‘join’
Viridian you pay to be an associate in what appears to be a network marketing scheme. Is that correct?

This is a business model entirely unfamiliar to me in this field as our power companies in the UK don’t sell like this.

I agree we can go a long way on energy efficiency, and as petrol (gas) is some 10$ a gallon over here in the UK, and electricity/natural gas is around twice as expensive as in the US you can rest assured we are likely to be much further down this efficiency road than most in the US are, but there is a law of diminishing returns.Tens of thousands of people will die here over the winter as around one third of all households are now in fuel poverty. With the govt ‘green taxes’ our energy costs are slated to double in five years, will become intermittent (as renewables are so expensive and inefficient) and half of all UK households will then be in fuel poverty.

As for your using wind power, that’s all very well on an individual basis, but it is being used as a serious alternative to grown up energy sources. In the UK , where we are building wind turbines as if there is no tomorrow, our coldest weather comes during the winter when a high pressure settles over us. In that case there is often no wind for weeks on end.

You commented on my response as follows;
———— ——-
“My own research shows, it goes back to 1607.
Either Berkely is wrong or the hockey stick is wrong. Which one do you want to go with?”
Your reply to me;
“Unless your analysis that proves either of those two wrong is peer reviewed in a journal, I am not going to take your word for it.”
——- —–
The graph from Berkely is there for all to see. They go back to 1800 and it has been warming all the way from the depths of the LIA. Dr Mann’s version shows a static/slightly dropping temperature profile until 1900 when it shoots up. One must be wrong. Who is it?

By the way here is my web site. I collect Historic instrumental records. The Met office archive in nearby Exeter is also a very useful source of information so I guess I know as much about the subject as anyone.Where does your knowlredge come from?http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/

Lots of good information and artiucles there, there is even a ‘green’ corner.
Hope your knee is better soon. All the best
.
tonyb

“So the odds of any kind of catastrophic change from a couple degrees warming seems like about zero to me.”
__________________

_

You are a wild and crazy oddsmaker. We will have to agree to disagree. There isn’t any point in discussing a subject with someone like you. Tell you what, I’ll check on ya again in 2020.

You mean that in your opinion … wait for it … it’s good … in your opinion I’m …

…

…

Not Alarmist Enough?

I knew that was the problem.

otter, I invited you to provide us with an account of the catastrophes resulting from the last 2° temperature rise, 1800 to now. You haven’t named a single one.

Now, that doesn’t mean the next 2° rise won’t cause catastrophes. But it certainly proves that there is no requirement that a 2° temperature rise causes catastrophes. And it certainly argues against the probability of the occurrence of a catastrophe.

Is the chance of climate catastrophe really “about zero”? Naw, that was a bit of poetic license, but it’s certainly not large. History says the chances of catastrophe from 2° rise is small, we have no historical record of such a catastrophe. And an examination of the arguments that CO2 will inevitably cause temperature rise shows that there is little evidence to support that claim. Small chance times little evidence equals pretty low odds of some catastrophic Thermageddon.

What the worst case? Warmer winter nights in Wisconsin? Longer growing seasons in Canada? Heck, maybe it’s a three foot sea level rise … but despite a quarter century of James Hansen waiting for the rapture, there’s no sign of any increase in sea level rise, and lately it’s even been slowing down.

You gotta understand, otter, I’ve lived through a bunch of failed prognostication. Hansen predicted ten feet (3 m) of sea level rise in forty years in New York. We’re halfway there, and the rise has been two and a half inches (6 cm) … so no, otter, your prognostications of doom don’t impress me. I’ve seen better men than you make predictions. I watched Paul Ehrlich fail repeatedly and miserably, he’s the king of the failed serial doomcasters, I watched Hansen go down in flames, more than once.

Do I believe in oncoming climate catastrophe? Not a bit. I believe that the earth abides, that life and the planet and the climate are infinitely more complex than our computer programs. I think if the earth were that delicate, that tipsy, that subject to a minuscule variation in a trace gas, it would not have a temperature stable to a few degrees in ten thousand years.

Willis said Read the dang link, and then apply your properly skeptical mind to the claims.

If anyone finds the “verifiable facts” that Willis is asking for in Ira’s post, then please present them. In absense of that, Ira’s post seems to be a heavily biased form of a mix of opinion and ignorance, neither of which have anything to do with the facts that NASA actually present.

Gail Combs says:
October 25, 2011 at 8:42 amAND NOW you understand why the climate gang dances around FOIA requests, wipes the data from computers, lost the data.. Only by screen capture and down loading and saving data did skeptics have a chance of grabbing that data as Ira did.

If Ira captured this ‘data’ by grabbing a screenshot, then at least he could have told us when and where he took that screenshot. But he did not. He just presents some blinking graph and apparently that is enough for the gullables among us to accept his proclamations as the truth, no questions asked.

Didn’t Kurt Lembeck settle this issue in the 1970’s with his paper on Earth’s Variable Rotational axis? There is no “global climate change”. The global climate is pretty much the same. It’s the regions of the earth that are shifting into different climates. If you have a ball half in ice and half out, then twist the ball slightly in a diagonal manner you are exposing different areas of the ball to the ice, but the overall climate has not changed a bit. Oh yeah, and the only ‘man made’ part of my analogy is when I twist the ball.

“otter, your prognostications of doom don’t impress me. I’ve seen better men than you make predictions.”
__________
Look man, I don’t make up my own prognostications on a subject that is not my area of expertise. What I do is evaluate the body of scientific knowledge that is accumulated through the rigorous scientific process. My knowledge comes from the papers and the analyses that are based on the papers.

“Do I believe in oncoming climate catastrophe? Not a bit. I believe that the earth abides, that life and the planet and the climate are infinitely more complex than our computer programs. I think if the earth were that delicate, that tipsy, that subject to a minuscule variation in a trace gas, it would not have a temperature stable to a few degrees in ten thousand years.
__________
You can believe whatever you want, whether it is in opposition of the science or not, but don’t be surprised when people challenge your beliefs with the journal peer reviewed scientific evidence. Anyway, I’m sure by 2020 some form of legislation and ramp down in fossil fuel emissions will have been initiated. I’ll check back in 2020 to see how we think the world is doing.

“otter, your prognostications of doom don’t impress me. I’ve seen better men than you make predictions.”

__________
Look man, I don’t make up my own prognostications on a subject that is not my area of expertise. What I do is evaluate the body of scientific knowledge that is accumulated through the rigorous scientific process. My knowledge comes from the papers and the analyses that are based on the papers.

“Do I believe in oncoming climate catastrophe? Not a bit. I believe that the earth abides, that life and the planet and the climate are infinitely more complex than our computer programs. I think if the earth were that delicate, that tipsy, that subject to a minuscule variation in a trace gas, it would not have a temperature stable to a few degrees in ten thousand years.

__________
You can believe whatever you want, whether it is in opposition of the science or not, but don’t be surprised when people challenge your beliefs with the journal peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Opposition to the science? THE science? Which science is THE science?

For example, I asked you to provide us with some kind of scientific evidence that the 2° of warming in the last century caused any kinds of catastrophes. You have provided nothing. Nor has anyone else. So yes, I will be surprised when someone comes up with some evidence, scientific or even anecdotal, of some huge damage done by that 2° of historical warming.

Still waiting for the evidence, otter, and I’m happy to be surprised … bring it on.

Anyway, I’m sure by 2020 some form of legislation and ramp down in fossil fuel emissions will have been initiated. I’ll check back in 2020 to see how we think the world is doing.

Since the Kyoto Protocol was legislation signed some years ago to “ramp down … fossil fuel emissions”, we don’t have to wait until 2020 to see how the world is doing … we can look right now.

The answer is, the Kyoto Protocol did … well … nothing. Unless you follow the AGW mantra, “correlation is causation”, in which case the start of the Kyoto Protocol was suspiciously near the start of the current hiatus in warming …

So, no need to come back in 2020, otter. Been there, tried one of those Otter recommended “legislation and ramp down in fossil fuel emissions” plans. Otter might recommend it. I don’t. It failed miserably.

Thanks for playing, though, and next time … bring along that surprising scientific evidence you spoke of, that no one has been able to find.

You managed to create another opinion piece, flooding over with ad hominems and strawmans, without a single reference to any scientific paper, and still get 188 responses. That’s pretty awesome for an ‘amateur scientist’ who just in his previous post claims to have found that cloud forcing works as a “governor” that regulates temperature on this planet, but can’t even agree with himself about the definition of what “cloud forcing” actually is.

Still that does not deter you from a constant and relentless level of insults and accusations against scientists who actually (unlike you) publish their research in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and against anyone who dares to state on “your” blog post that they finds these scientific papers more trustworthy than your unsubstantiated assertions, accusations and opinions. For example, you wrote about Hansen : And all this from the man who in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years?

So, it would be nice if you would actually show a reference to where Hansen predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise forty years from 1988.

You managed to create another opinion piece, flooding over with ad hominems and strawmans, without a single reference to any scientific paper, and still get 188 responses.

And that obviously gripes your digestion and bothers your inner sense of justice … hey, there is no justice. Otherwise, why would I be a successful author with 188 comments on this piece alone and thousands of people reading my work, and you just a random voice complaining about my success? … like I said, no justice at all.

In any case, in a discussion of Jim Hansen, why would I need to reference a scientific paper? I reserve that for discussing the work of scientists, not alarmist activists like Hansen.

That’s pretty awesome for an ‘amateur scientist’ who just in his previous post claims to have found that cloud forcing works as a “governor” that regulates temperature on this planet, but can’t even agree with himself about the definition of what “cloud forcing” actually is.

Hey, my latest peer-reviewed paper was announced last week, I’m an awesome guy for an amateur scientist, what can I say?

Still that does not deter you from a constant and relentless level of insults and accusations against scientists who actually (unlike you) publish their research in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and against anyone who dares to state on “your” blog post that they finds these scientific papers more trustworthy than your unsubstantiated assertions, accusations and opinions. For example, you wrote about Hansen : And all this from the man who in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years?

So, it would be nice if you would actually show a reference to where Hansen predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise forty years from 1988.

Are you truly so clueless that you think I make this stuff up? You should know by now that trying to catch me on these things just makes you look foolish. In any case, the citation is here.

w.

PS—You are so naive you still believe that in climate science “peer reviewed” means anything. It doesn’t. Michael Mann’s work was peer reviewed … lotta good that did.

Willis wrote : Are you truly so clueless that you think I make this stuff up? You should know by now that trying to catch me on these things just makes you look foolish. In any case, the citation is here.

Willis, with all due respect, but that link is to another WUWT page which does not actually state what Hansen said. In fact, it seems to be refering (although there is no direct link given) to an interview of Bob Reiss on his book “The Coming Storm”. It also suggests that the interviewers got both the timeframe (20 yrs instead of 40) wrong as well as the condition of a “doubling of CO2”. Either way, no reference to what Hansen actually said in Reiss’ book, and certainly no mention of a “prediction” of “a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise”. That seems to be a creation by you, and possibly a conclusion of Anthony in the post you reference.

One word of advice if you present “evidence” to sustain your assertions : Maybe you could actually quote what Hansen said directly, instead of what Anthony presents, or what an casual interviewer reported on what Reiss may have said in his book on what he thinks that Hansen said in a casual interview some 23 years ago.

Regarding your peer-reviewed paper : congratulations ! I did not know you were a co-author of that recent publication, and I actually found it interesting that regarding mamals and bird extinction rates that for example “the recent continental bird rate is 0.69 as high to 5.9 times higher than background. For islands, it is 98–844 times higher than background on a per species basis.”

Willis wrote : Are you truly so clueless that you think I make this stuff up? You should know by now that trying to catch me on these things just makes you look foolish. In any case, the citation is here.

Willis, with all due respect, but that link is to another WUWT page which does not actually state what Hansen said. In fact, it seems to be refering (although there is no direct link given) to an interview of Bob Reiss on his book “The Coming Storm”. It also suggests that the interviewers got both the timeframe (20 yrs instead of 40) wrong as well as the condition of a “doubling of CO2″. Either way, no reference to what Hansen actually said in Reiss’ book, and certainly no mention of a “prediction” of “a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise”. That seems to be a creation by you, and possibly a conclusion of Anthony in the post you reference.

One word of advice if you present “evidence” to sustain your assertions : Maybe you could actually quote what Hansen said directly, instead of what Anthony presents, or what an casual interviewer reported on what Reiss may have said in his book on what he thinks that Hansen said in a casual interview some 23 years ago.

Bear in mind that Reiss thinks we are headed for a global meltdown of extreme events. He is a supporter of Hansen’s. He discussed Hansen’s statement with him. Here’s the report:

Reiss spoke to Salon from his home in New York.

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then. SOURCE

If you think Reiss is lying, you can take it up with him. Hansen’s only objection to Reiss’s report of the conversation was he (Hansen) said 40 years, not 20 … so it sounds like Hansen believed it too. Reiss believed Hansen said it, Hansen believed he said it, given that I believe it too … that just leaves you …

Regarding the 10 foot rise, he actually said that the West Side Highway would be underwater … you can calculate the rise it would take to do that, but I get at least ten feet …

This required a huge amount of research and whilst not relevant to part 1,which only went up to the Romans, I certainly collected numerous studies and quotes as to what is likelyto happen this century.

”James Hansen is director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, and has been repeatedly harassed by the Bush Administration for his outspoken views on climate change. A shorter article by Hansen (citation below) puts the sea level rise at 80 feet with a temperature rise of 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit, which would melt ice on Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, and the East Antarctic Ice Shelf.”

This is a paper James Hansen wrote in 2007 which seems to relate to that 80 foot figure.

climatereason I don’t want to interupt your private spat with Willis but Hansen has made many claims.
Thanks for joining this not-so-private forum, tony.

Indeed, Hansen has made many significant scientific claims, but neither of these are contested here. For example, there is not a single line of text in this entire post (with comments) that was actually a direct quote from Hansen (apart from the abstract the Willis quoted in the first paragraph).

Instead, Willis here seems to base his accusations against Hansen on what other people are writing about what yet other people say that Hansen has said. Presentation of this kind of derivatives leads to a great deal of confusion and misrepresentation on what Hansen actually said.

The Earth’s history suggests that with warming of 2-3°C the new equilibrium sea level will include not only most of the ice from Greenland and West Antarctica, but a portion of East Antarctica, raising sea level of the order of 25 meters (80 feet).

You see what went wrong ? First, the blogger mixed up Farenheit with Celcius, and then he failed to state that 25 meters is the “equilibrium sea level”. That means that eventually we will get there. The question is just, how fast will this go ? Of course, nobody
knows exactly how fast we will get 25 meters of sea level rise, and Hansen does not claim to know that either.

However, he does lay out a scenario which is not inconsistent with observations so far :

This is the reference that you label with “This is a paper James Hansen wrote in 2007 which seems to relate to that 80 foot figure.”.

In this paper, what Hansen actually states is this :

As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the
decade 2005-2015 and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted.
That time constant yields sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century. Of course I can not prove that my choice of a 10 year doubling time for non-linear response is accurate, but I am confident that it provides a far better estimate than a linear response for the ice sheet component of sea level rise.

Incidentally, do you see that you quoted a paper which does NOT sustain your claim of what Hansen said ? And thus you are simply adding to to misinformation which is going rampant on the blogosphere ?

Now can we discuss what Hansen actually said (such as the two blockquotes above) or do you guys want to continue quoting remarks made by a third party ?

“It depends on how fast ice sheets melt, but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades. ”

I then quoted an arch green group (it was a she not a he) who had mapped the 20 foot sea level increase which seems to come straight from Al Gores popular comedy science fiction movie, and I cited (from it) the very paper by James Hansen that you then quote back to me, that says precisely what I had already indicated, which was to paraphrase (once again)

“It depends on how fast ice sheets melt,but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades.

On what evidence are you supporting Hansens written claim of this sort of rise?

“Right now, we’re headed towards an ice-free planet. That takes us through the Eemian interglacial period of about 130,000 years ago when sea levels were 15 to 20 feet higher, when temperatures had been thought to be about 1°C warmer than today. Then we go back to the “early Pliocene, when sea level was about 25 m [82 feet] higher than today,” as NASA’s James Hansen and Makiko Sato explain in a new draft paper, “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change

It would seem that your time would be better spent ‘correcting’ the utterances of those on your side of the debate such as Joe Romm and Watermark, rather than complaining to WUWT about things that Hansen does actually quote.

Ps I agree there are all sorts of wild claims out there (by both sides), which is why I like to cite real papers-I have defended Hansen AND MANN here sometimes when incorrect information was being used, but it seems we both agree that Hansen has said what I paraphrased
tonyb

It depends on how fast ice sheets melt, but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades.

However, in the reference you quote as evidence of your assertion, Hansen actual states :

That time constant yields sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century.

which puts even the lower bound of your quote of Hansen at the time scale of a century. The upper bound, which reflects the equilibrium sea level for a 2-3 C temp increase, is obviously much further out according to Hansen.

Do you now realize that your quote is not an accurate reflection of what Hansen actually stated ?

Now do you want to argue that the “equilibrium sea level” of 2-3 C temperature increase is NOT 25 meter (80 feet) ? Or do you want to argue Hansen’s “quantitative example” which leads to 5 meter sea level rise over the timeframe of 1 century ?

I am baffled as to what you are now arguing. Hansen believes there will be a very substantial sea level rise which he set between some very broad bands set over a loose time scale. I quoted this and you quoted this back. How on earth is it not accurate to quote Hansen himself and his sidekick Joe Romm?

He puts the expected sea levels as rising by meters as a result of a 1 degree c increase. He expects much more temperature rise than this and for feedbacks to kick in

Talking about the Hansen and Sato 2011 paper a reader at Skeptical Science comments

“The estimates here seem very conservative for sea rise. They basically look at a very linear extrapolation. Hansen and Sato see a non linear rise- with as much as a 4-5 meter rise by 2090. During the Eemian interglacial when global temperatures where at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius warmer then today, sea levels were about 4 meters higher then present.’

I know it may feel a bit chilling to be faced with your assertion, so let’s go through this one more time :
You stated :

It depends on how fast ice sheets melt, but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades.

I argue that this statement is misleading, since Hansen did not put the timescale at “decades”. Centuries, maybe, for a 16 to 80 feet sea level rise. But Hansen definitely did NOT put the timeframe “at decades”.

Second, You mentioned :

This is a paper James Hansen wrote in 2007 which seems to relate to that 80 foot figure.

This paper does NOT mention “that 80 foot figure”, so again you are misleading.

Then you mention :

I cited (from it) the very paper by James Hansen that you then quote back to me, that says precisely what I had already indicated, which was to paraphrase (once again)

“It depends on how fast ice sheets melt,but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades”.

Which is rather baffling for you to state this, since we already know that Hansen did NOT claim a 16 to 80 feet sea level rise within a time scale of “decades”. Tony, maybe you have been spreading misleading statement so often that started to believe you own deceptions. So, I’m sorry to burts your bubble here, but your arguments have more credibility if they are consistent with the evidence you present. You can thank me later.

Either way, no reference to what Hansen actually said in Reiss’ book, and certainly no mention of a “prediction” of “a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise”. That seems to be a creation by you, and possibly a conclusion of Anthony in the post you reference.

To which Willis quoted half the “salon” interview with Reiss and then stated :

If you think Reiss is lying, you can take it up with him. Hansen’s only objection to Reiss’s report of the conversation was he (Hansen) said 40 years, not 20

That’s misleading, Willis. Reiss admitted that his question to Hansen included the condition “assuming that CO2 doubled”, a condition which you (conveniently) appear to ignore.

Besides, I specifically asked for a reference to what Hansen actually said (in Reiss’ book), rather than what a casual interviewer reported on what Reiss may have said in his book on what he thinks that Hansen said in a casual interview some 23 years ago.

Read the literature you have been cited where I specfically note a section. Hansen cites with approval a number of studies showing the likely effects of melting ice. He puts the effects as being from 5 meters to many times that. He uses a number of different timescales.

I have agreed with you that there is a lot of disinformation out there but then you seem to want to spread your own.

Why don’t you tell me in your own and Hansens words what sea levels he believes will come about by the end of this century, and on a slightly longer time scale if we continue on our current co2 path?

I am sure we all have much better things to do than hang around a dead thread, especially as you seem to have conceded the 5 metre rise argument. Without meaning to sound snarky can I suggest that you write an article along the lines of;

“What james Hansen REALLY said about sea level rise”

If you post its availability in the appropriate ‘stories’ place in the header bar and alert me by posting to this thread, I will personally follow up with Anthony Watts to ask if he would be willing to host the article. I am sure it would be very popular.
best regards
Tonyb

Tony,
You are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself by avoiding responsibility for your own words.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you made misleading statements ?

Once again, this is what you wrote in your comment 788749 dated November 5, 2011 at 10:15 am:

It depends on how fast ice sheets melt, but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades.

which you re-emphesized in your next post :

I made no claim other than;

“It depends on how fast ice sheets melt, but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades. “

Which I pointed our is misleading, since Hansen did not mention a time scale of “decades” for this sea level rise. Centuries, maybe, but not “decades”.

After you realised you made a mistake, you start making excuses :

“Ps I agree there are all sorts of wild claims out there (by both sides), which is why I like to cite real papers”

Your claim was NOT from a real paper. You made it up all by yourself.

and

“It would seem that your time would be better spent ‘correcting’ the utterances of those on your side of the debate such as Joe Romm and Watermark, rather than complaining to WUWT about things that Hansen does actually quote.”

Apart from the fact that Hansen did not quote anyone here, it is rather arrogant of you to ask me to correct others (like Joe Romm, who is not even posting here), while YOU are the one attributing claims to Hansen which you made up all by yourself.

and

“but it seems we both agree that Hansen has said what I paraphrased”

which is utter nonsense, since you did not paraphrase Hansen when you wrote the blockquote above. You made it up all by yourself.

and

“I think you are conflating what Willis and I have said.”

Sorry dude. I did not, and Willis has nothing to do with your statement. You made it up all by yourself.

and

“Read the literature you have been cited”.

I did, and your statement (blockquote above) is NOT there. You guessed it : you made it up all by yourself.

and plenty of other ways to dodge responsibility of your own statements, such as :

“Why don’t you tell me in your own and Hansens words what sea levels he believes will come about by the end of this century”

Why don’t you tell us why you make up statements that you attribute to Hansen ?

and

“I am sure we all have much better things to do than hang around a dead thread”

Then why do you continue to do so ?

and

“I suggest that you write an article along the lines of;

“What james Hansen REALLY said about sea level rise” “

Hansen said what he said. No need for me to ‘tell you’ what I think ‘he believes’.

Let me make another suggestion : You write an article on what YOU think that you said that Hansen said about sea level rise.

Because as shown above, it seems that once you realize that your own statement is misleading or incorrect or worse, that you want to blame others for making the statement : Hansen, a blogger, Joe Romm, some unspecified ‘paper’, or even Willis. I’m surprised you don’t suggest that I am the one making the statement I block-quoted above.

‘Either way, no reference to what Hansen actually said in Reiss’ book, and certainly no mention of a “prediction” of “a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise”. That seems to be a creation by you, and possibly a conclusion of Anthony in the post you reference. ‘

That is when I joined the discussion when I said.

“It depends on how fast ice sheets melt, but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades. “

Hansen believes that if its business as usual it will be 5.5 degrees warmer (presumably Fahrenheit) which is the figure needed, according to his citation, to create sea levels 25 m higher. In fact only 1 degree more is needed if the logic in the article holds. (see ref below for citation of this 5.5 degree figure.)

Hansen clearly said a 5 metre rise by 2090- that is decades not centuries. It is quoted in the Hansen and Sato 2011 paper I linked to earlier and which interestingly you now seem to be backtracking about by throwing up semantic niceties and wordy smokescreens over the timing of the 80 foot reference.

“Since then, Hansen’s prognostications have grown considerably more dire. “In the past five years, it’s become clear to me that the problem is a lot more urgent than we thought,” he (Hansen) said Monday night. Unless major steps are taken to curb the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, he is “99 percent certain” that the world as we know it will be forever changed. “If we go down the business-as-usual path, it will be 5.5 degrees warmer by the end of this century, warmer than it’s been in 3 million years,” he warned. “If you go back to that time, the sea levels were 80 feet higher.” Should that happen, he predicted, hundreds of millions of people would be homeless, the world’s weather patterns would be violently scrambled, and about half the planet’s species would become extinct.”

The Commentator said

“And once again, Hansen has moved far out ahead of the curve. Fuelling his alarm are two factors. It used to be that paleo-climatologists thought the hottest the world had ever been was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than current temperatures. Hansen says new research shows that the hottest temperature was actually 1 degree Celsius warmer than now, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. And when the world was a single Celsius degree hotter, he said, the geologic records indicate the seas were 85 feet higher than they are today. The record indicates we’re now within just one degree of the warmest period on the planet. In other words, whatever wiggle room we thought we had has just dramatically tightened.”

We have got ‘business as usual’ so that is presumably why we have two predictions for 5 metres and 80 feet.

Here is Hansen again writing in the Royal society journal of 2007 which was reported on here by Dave Lindorff

“Hansen, saying that recent evidence of melting at the poles shows ice melts much differently, and faster, than once assumed, warns that a few degrees’ rise in temperatures in northern regions could produce much worse results. While he says we could see a resulting rise in sea levels over this century of several meters (bad enough), he also warns that with only the widely predicted 5-6 degree Fahrenheit rise in this century that the IPCC has predicted, the earth could see these two huge ice sheets collapse almost entirely over the next century, with a resulting sea rise of some 80 feet or more. “

“The imminent peril is initiation of dynamical and thermodynamical processes on the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets that produce a situation out of humanity’s control, such that devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur. Climate forcing of this century under BAU would dwarf natural forcings of the past million years, indeed it would probably exceed climate forcing of the middle Pliocene, when the planet was not more than 2–3 degrees C warmer and sea level 25m 10 m higher (Dowsett et al. 1994). The climate sensitivities we have inferred from palaeoclimate data ensure that a BAU GHG emission scenario would produce global warming of several degrees Celsius this century, with amplification at high latitudes.’

Read the Hansen papers-read his references within them. Read the Romm article. Are you still saying that your claim that Hansen made no prediction of a 3 metre sea level rise to be correct or that he has made no references to 80 foot?

It seems to me that the alarmism is coming from your side with such as Watermark, Joe Romm and Dave Lindorff together with numerous other green campaigning organisations

Hansen seems quite happy that his ultra alarmist views are peddled around the blogosphere by his own cohorts. If he wants to put over a more measured view perhaps he ought to write an appropriate article ‘clarifying’ his position and ensure this gets the same publicity, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation where you are trying to defend a position that is indefensible.

When I write part three of my sea level rise series I will no doubt refer briefly to Hansen, but I am interested in proper factual information not wild estimates. However if you believe he has been misrepresented in face of all the evidence why don’t you put the record straight by writing an article?
tonyb